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

[Satyrn]

TL,DR: Some people are exasperated that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has a fun way to play 5e

I roll an insight check to see if Dave's telling the truth . . . 13!

Does that beat the DC?

 

[Oofta]

I roll an insight check to see if Dave's telling the truth . . . 13!

Does that beat the DC?

The real question is, if he thinks he's telling the truth, is he really telling the truth even if it's not true? What if he thinks he's probably telling the truth but isn't certain? What if he starts posting in all caps that YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

 

[Satyrn]

The real question is, if he thinks he's telling the truth, is he really telling the truth even if it's not true? What if he thinks he's probably telling the truth but isn't certain? What if he starts posting in all caps that YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

I dig through my Socratic Philosophy textbook in search of the answers to these weighty questions . . .*Rolls his lucky d20*. . . 7!

What ability modifier do I use? And can I add my proficiency bonus to the roll to because of my philosophy degree?

. . .

Er, who's the DM of this thread anyway?

 

[5ekyu]

Game of Thrones? Everyone you care about dies. If they haven't died yet, they're about to die.

Or did you mean the never-ending thread? You have two basic camps.

One takes what I consider a very hard-core approach that a PC cannot ask to do a skill check (i.e. "I make an insight check to see if they're lying") and instead have to state goal and method. Depending on who you ask there also has to be a requirement for a significant cost of failure. Oh, and in the case of the OP the player could not ask for a skill check because players can't ask for skill checks. Only the DM can call for a skill check and they won't because there's no chance of failure.

In addition, players should avoid skill checks at all costs and instead describe how they're accomplishing the goal in such a way that it's guaranteed to succeed.

The other (that I support) doesn't really care how people say what they're doing or how as long as it's clear. If it's not clear, I just ask for clarification. As far as the the OP I'd ask for (or allow) an insight check because people meta-game even if they don't realize it and if I don't ask (or allow) for one there was no attempt at deception.

Now I'll probably be accused of completely misrepresenting the former opinion and not being sincere. That and I run boring games where all people do is sit around grunting at each other and rolling dice because I don't let people bypass the skill check entirely by describing how they disable a trap.

You left out always telegraphed giant rolling wine bottles and creativity, you fiend!!!!

 

[Oofta]

You left out always telegraphed giant rolling wine bottles and creativity, you fiend!!!!

Must ... resist ... snarky ... comment ... that ... will ... continue ... flame ... war!

 

[Guest 6801328]

[MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION], I don't want to waste time on this any more. Obviously if someone has a key to a door they don't need to use lockpicks. If they can bypass a trap by taking another route, they take the other route.

On the other hand if they have to disable a simple trap (complex traps are a different beast) or unlock a door with lockpicks, I will ask for a check no matter how they describe it.

That's just not how I run it. Run it differently at your table? As long as people are having fun you're doing it right.

That’s fine, but after all these pages you could at least characterize what we’ve been saying with a modicum of fairness.

 

[Oofta]

That’s fine, but after all these pages you could at least characterize what we’ve been saying with a modicum of fairness.

This post had absolutely nothing to say about how you run your games.

I obviously disagree with you on several points, I'm just relating how I run my game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This post had absolutely nothing to say about how you run your games.

I obviously disagree with you on several points, I'm just relating how I run my game.

I was referring to the previous page.

 

[Oofta]

I was referring to the previous page.

Ah, well then thanks for confirming that I will be accused of misrepresenting you.

I know I'm a bit sarcastic and I obviously run my game differently but without going to actual quotes I did my best.

Was I mistaken? The Cliff Notes version:

• Players should not declare use of skills, the DM calls for skills if necessary.
• There should never be a skill check unless there is a significant penalty for failure.
• The DM should never call for (or allow a player to ask for) a skill check if there is no chance of failure (i.e. no insight check if the NPC is telling the truth like the OP).
• Players should always avoid a skill check if possible, which includes describing for example how they disarm a trap.*
• Traps and challenges should be broadcast so that they are obvious

I think I'm probably missing one but I'm drawing a blank. I'm also not saying you personally run your game that way.

Now you could give me blocks of text on why you prefer this style, but I don't really see a point. You like playing the game this way? Your players enjoy it? Fantastic!

*I have no problem with people bypassing a trap altogether by taking another route, but if disarming a simple trap in my game you need to make a roll.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What are you talking about?

Sorry if I am phrasing my summaries poorly.

You said that you aren't saying your players will take "Better options" just options that have no chance of failure.

Also, an option than has no meaningful consequence, you won't call for a roll, it will just auto-succeed. Meaning in the meta (since you are very specific in what you want to mean) those action would be considered actions that cannot fail, because the DM will make them succeed.

Look, I don't know how much more plainly I can say it. At my table, if you think of an idea that seems like it would probably work, chances are pretty good that it just will. If there is a risk involved, I will tell you so, and give you the option to proceed, or change tactics. It's really not that hard.

But you also keep saying that you aren't trying to claim your players are picking better ways, or more effective ways.

They are just the ways that will succeed. Because they come up with ideas that are likely to work.

There is an implicit thrust to this, that people not using your set of requirements are getting players who are not taking those actions, who are not coming up with actions that are likely to succeed or ideas that will likely work. If your system creates those types of actions, it seems you are implying we don't.m

I understand the order of operations you are operating under, but I don't see what it is meant to achieve that my approach of just asking the players to tell me what they want to do, and being prepared for things to become skill checks, doesn't.

I don't know, I didn't plan out a foolproof escape plan for you. Try something, and I'll use my best judgment to adjudicate it.

I might have been unclear.

I'm not coming up with a plan. I wanted to see what your plan was.

You're system incentivizes players to take actions that have no chance of failing, so, in that scenario, what is the foolproof plan that your system would incentivize you to make. I can think of plenty of plans that have a chance of failing, some maybe involving multiple rolls. But I'm not trying to understand myself, I'm trying to understand you.

In other words, you are reading my statements as uncharitably as possible, and then claiming that I am uncharitable in my adjudication. It's clear that you are not making an earnest attempt to understand my DMing style, so unless you actually come to one of my games to see it firsthand, you're just going to have to take my word for it that it is really not that hard to be successful.

I was going to respond to the part right above this, but this seemed like a better point.

How am I being uncharitable?

If there is a chance of success, a chance of failure, and consequences for the action. You will call for a roll. If there are consequences they must make the situation worse for the player than it started out as. There must also be consequences for not acting. The goal is not to roll the dice at all.

The only ways to avoid rolling the dice, would be to come up with a plan that cannot fail (removing the requirement of the action having a chance of failure) or to come up with a plan that has no consequence for failure (removing that structure instead). You could also avoid rolling by coming up with a plan that has no chance of success, but that means auto-failure, so that's not ideal.

This is what you have said, this is your system. Now, maybe you mean "the action has a decent chance of failure" instead "chance of failure" but just from what you have said, I don't want to assume that.

Now, it is likely we would call for rolls much of the same time, I might just call for more than you do. But, I don't see the difference you are trying to put between our two methods unless you are more strict in rulings or consequences than I am. Otherwise, this entire discussion has come about because I occasionally allow rolls you wouldn't instead of any major difference in our adjudication of rolls.

You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. It doesn't require an explanation. Here's how it actually goes in my game:
Rogue: I use my theives' tools to pick the lock.
Me: Ok, that'll take about 10 minutes and a successful DC 15 Dexterity check.
Rogue: I have +7 with Thieves' Tools and Reliable Talent, do I still need to roll?
Me: Nah, you're good, you can totally pick this lock with 10 minutes of work.
Rogue: Cool, let's do it!
Me: *Makes note of 10 minutes passing* Ok, the door unlocks with a click.

That's pretty much how I would handle it. Except for the 10 minutes part (but that has nothing to do with anything we're discussing) I just wouldn't tell them it was a DC 15 check. Might tell them it looks like a fairly basic lock if they have the time to study it.

The player asked to do something. They easily can beat the DC due to their abilities. They succeed.

Where is the need for your three step process and division between actions and checks? Since that gets resolved the same way... what do you think I'm doing differently?

Look, all I'm doing is pointing out that action and check are two different things. You're the one confusing yourself with all this meaningless pedantry.

Right, you insisted something I said was wrong, because these two things are distinct. I cannot have checks which do not require a roll, because all checks require a roll only actions might not require a roll.

And as I try and dig into this to understand why what I was saying was wrong... I'm finding almost no meaningful distinction, nor a reason you had to call out my statement as wrong. You just had to point out that you follow very strict definitions of the terms that have little impact on the game itself?

No. "I roll perception" and "I listen at the door for the sound of other creatures" are qualitatively different.

Why?

No, you're still thinking in terms of action=check. You should be thinking in terms of action as the thing your character does and check as a mechanical process that is sometimes required of you to perform to find out what happens as a result of your character's action.

Something wrong with that?

Why do you insist on this? Is it really that hard for you to understand how this works?

"I search the room for clues" is an investigation check. Sure, maybe the DM will just hand me a success, but if they do not it will be an investigation check to investigate the room. "I shove the goblin off the cliff" is the shove action, which is an athletics check, maybe the DM just wants to get the fight over with and my fighter will succeed, but if they do not it will athletics opposed by Goblin Dexterity to shove it off, and the goblin will get a Dex save to catch the edge as well. "I listen through the door to hear what they are saying about the Duke" is a perception check. Maybe the DM will just let me succeed, but if they do not it will be a perception check to hear a conversation through a thick wooden door.

You want me to divide these, to only think in terms of the actions, but the resolution of actions is done through skill checks. Actions are highly likely to have skill checks follow them. So, thinking only about the action and not considering the mechanics behind the action just seems like poor play. Especially when, if a check is called for at your table, you are going to tell me a DC and a consequence for failure, so I need to already be thinking in mechanical terms not surprised when you say I need to roll perception if I want to accomplish my task.

As for me having a problem with a player being able to lay out all their options with precise DCs for each, before wasting any time or making any decision... yeah, I have a problem with that. It kind of ruins the narrative. Just like how I really never liked the VATS system in Fallout 3, because all of a sudden I could stop being in the world and pull up a screen of statistics to make the most mathematical optimal choice. You don't know what the mathematical best choice is between shoving past the guards on the stairs, jumping out the window, or leaping for the chandelier. You just know those are options, you are on the 3rd floor and the floor below the chandelier is at least 10 ft down. You have the information your character has, go ahead an make a choice.

By imagining your character as an entity in a world that behaves more or less like the real one. Think about what that character might do in the situation being narrated, and what might happen as a result. If you are uncertain of the results, there's a good chance it will require a check. If you're pretty confident about what you think would happen as a result, there's a good chance that is exactly what will happen. Describe your character's actions accordingly, and I will do the same. If I am uncertain of the outcome, I will ask you for a check to help me decide what happens. Easy.

But this has nothing to do with any of what you said. Why is your system about presenting chances of success and failure and consequences for failure and all these different mechanical options if your goal is simply "imagine your character is in the world". That's far simpler. That doesn't require anything you have been talking about. I should know, getting people to think like their character would is my entire goal, yet I never break down their choices into a three step verification process.

Sure, I think about the likelihood of success, but once they are thinking like their characters then they almost never make choices that have no chance of success. And they don't need to know the consequences for their actions, because those consequences that aren't obvious aren't things that the character is likely to know anyways. They didn't study the chandelier's structural integrity to see that a mistimed jump is going to cause it to rip out of the ceiling. They don't know that. They just know that they might be able to jump to it as one of their choices for avoiding the guards.

You go on about the process like that is the important part, but I'm reaching the same goal without your process and strict definitions.

Me too. The fact that you think the process looks different in my games is a clear indication that you are not understanding me.

And you not understanding me, since you kept telling me I was wrong.

Woah, back up a second there. When did I ever make such a claim? That would be a very strange thing for me to have done, because it's not something I believe.

You kept calling me out for not doing things your way, indicating that following these rules make for the best game. I've spent far more of our discussion defending why I said a thing, or trying to understand what I'm doing differently than you than I've spent picking apart your style, because you keep insising I'm not getting it and implying your way is the best way.

Not at all. The story is the most important thing. Do what you think your character would do. If what your character would do is avoid things they are not good at when stakes are high... That seems plenty realistic to me. And it's none of my business whether or not you arrived at that decision by looking at your stats.

But you make me highly aware of my stats first. By both assuring that there are consequences for failure if dice are rolled, and by telling me the exact DC, I know my precise chances of success. Once I have that information, I would find it very difficult to ignore that information and make decisions in spite of it. If I know my actions, despite being logical and exactly what I want my character to do, only have a 20% chance of success... then I'm breaking away from the story and instead delving into the mechanics. I know information my character doesn't (the precise odds of success) and so I am going to work off of that information instead of what makes sense for the story.

Again, this misunderstanding of my method is coming from you thinking in terms of action = check. If the barbarian's player has an idea for an awesome speech they think could switch the tide, they should just go ahead and give that speech. If they aren't an expert wordsmith and can't think of a way to make it sound good, that's fine, they can phrase it in terms of goal and approach, "I try to convince the king by playing to his sense of honor and tradition" or whatever. There's a good chance they won't need to roll. You're so worried about not wanting to have to make a check that you might have a chance of failing, you're completely overlooking the very good possibility that no check will be called for. And if it will be, I'll give you fair warning. There is absolutely no risk in describing a social action with your 8-charisma barbarian. Worst case scenario, I'll let you know exactly what the risks are, and if you're still that worried about failing, you can say "nah, nevermind."

So, I'm supposed to ignore any sort of mechanics until you pull aside the curtain and decide it is time to talk about them? There are plenty of reasons the King might not be swayed by my speech, and plenty of ways I could flub it up. Maybe I'm just against the idea of undoing player actions. I feel like at your table, the closest I would come would be asking "okay, what if I said something kind of like this" instead of staying in character and talking to the king, because the idea of "unringing a bell" once there is a chance for failure bothers the heck out of me. It makes me want to be too risk averse.

And my own experience in this sort of game is that if players have the choice between declaring an action that their PC will have only a modest chance of success in, or just conceding whatever it is that is at stake, then they will declare the action. For instance, I see this in my 4e game quite regularly - the player of the low-CHA fighter with no social skills nevertheless has his character talk to NPCs and try to persuade them of things, because (1) the player doesn't want his PC to just be standing there looking like a fool, and (2) because he ha views about what the NPCs should do, and wants those views to be realised. It's the same sort of reason that means that the wizard fights back when attacked, even though the wizard is a relatively weak combatant.

See, I disagree that it will happen under the system of consequences, and those consequences being worse than the status quo.

If the Fighter wishes not to look like a fool, attempting to do something could be far worse, because then they would be the fool who put their foot in their mouth and ruined the negotiation instead of letting the bard handle it. If there was no guarantee they could make things worse, I would agree with you, but if that guarantee exists then they are more likely to back out and express their desires by convincing the bard to agree with them rather than doing anything directly.

"Better to let people think you are a fool than open your mouth and prove it" as the saying goes.

I'm intrigued that you divorce these things. In RPGing I tend to find them closely connected (although not necessarily co-extensive).

I usually don't. After character creation and deciding what my character is (Cop, doctor, Musician, Jeweler) I have a general understanding of what I'm good at. That does influence my play, a character with high nature I tend to play as knowing a lot and caring a lot about nature. But, I generally respond with what I want my character to do, and then look to see what kind of roll that would be. Whether it is a good roll or not doesn't usually matter, because I've made a decision on my course of action that makes sense for what I think about my character.

In the example I was talking about though... I just looked at the highest number on my sheet. I didn't consider this character at all, I just figured out what his highest number was and what action that would correspond to. I went backwards, and then got told that was great roleplaying.

This is a somewhat separate thing from the other points in this post: on its face, what you say here seems to be the GM telling the player what action to declare or not to declare.

I appreciate that, especially in the heat of the moment, the GM can have a special duty to ensure that action declarations fit the genre and preconceptions of the game, and respect good taste and the established fiction. A silly example given by Luke Crane in a Burning Wheel rulebook: "No roll is allowed for the chance to find beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet!"

But I can't easily imagine a D&D game where mind controlling a guard into letting one go would be genre-breaking or bad taste in this way. It seems more like the very paradigm of genre-appropriateness: if it's good enough for Obi-Wan, it's good enough for a PC in a FRPG!

It's more about making players aware of what they are asking to do.

I've had players who want to do something like cast charm person on the guard, because charming the guard to make them let you go is a good plan in the immediate. I then remind them, that while they are perfectly fine to go forward with that action, they would be using magic to mind control an officer of the law, and that officer will be aware of their tampering after only a minute.

Or, wanting to swipe things from an NPC's pocket, and not remembering that when I set the scene, there are over forty thieves watching you all like hawks and they won't take kindly to be stolen from.

Generally, I get a "oh right, duh" because it was just the player not fully understanding the scene or the action they were taking. Other times I get the grin and the "OH yeah, that's the point" type answer. And then things progress from there.