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

[iserith]

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] raises some good points in his post - as well as that comparison to combat.

Having said that, there are quite a few players that still enjoy an old tomb of horrors-like styled method of roleplaying where the players' words matter greatly.

Some of us (presumably many) prefer the grey area in between. And some of us can expertly run separate styled games all of which would be discussed at session 0.

I'm easy enough (starved) to enjoy both styles.

The DMG (and I) recommend the "middle path." (Or at least, the DMG suggests it has no downsides compared to other approaches. See DMG, pp. 236-237) In the "middle path," the DM balances the use of dice against deciding on success. By doing so, the players are incentivized to pay attention to the game world while also relying on their character mechanics, when necessary. Chiefly that's by choosing to engage in tasks for which the character has the best chance of success if the player has to roll. If my character is good at finding traps, I'm going to be the guy who is really paying attention to the DM's description of the environment for clues that there is a trap, then putting my character in the best position to find them in hopes that I don't have to roll. But if I do have to roll, at least I've built my character to be pretty good at it and perhaps I have advantage or a lower DC due to my fictional positioning.

The other methods are relying on die rolls for almost everything or to use the dice as rarely as possible. In the former approach, the DMG says there's a risk that roleplaying diminishes because the players think their dice rolls, rather than their choices, determine success. In such a game, if my character is good at finding traps and the DM isn't into telegraphing, I'm going to just spam rolls at anything that might have a trap and hope I get lucky. In an approach that uses the dice as rarely as possible, the DMG says that, while this approach rewards creativity, no DM is completely neutral, favoring some players or approaches or directions for the game. Also, the game can slow down if the DM is hung up on the players describing the "One True Solution" to the challenge to the exclusion of all others. If I'm in a game like this, I'm going to be bored because I'm actually pretty bad at puzzles and coming up with the one solution that works to overcome the challenge is going to take me a long time (if I ever succeed at all).

Here's the thing though: I (and others, no doubt) practice the "middle path." But those who are debating me (or us, as the case may be) are asserting that we're trying to ignore the dice (as the DMG puts it). You can see it in the assertions they make ("gaming the DM," "magic words," etc.) and the examples they use. Which is not true, from the DM's perspective. While the players should be trying to avoid rolling as much as possible (since the d20 is so unreliable), the DM is balancing out the dice and calls for automatic success over time, chiefly because there are factors in the environment that cannot be controlled by the PCs and that introduce uncertainty as to the outcome of a task and a meaningful consequence of failure - which is when we call for a roll.

All that to say, what you're seeing in this thread are strawman arguments and statements of preference against approaches that myself and others do not employ. So one wonders what they're arguing about at all.

 

[Sadras]

Here's the thing though: I (and others, no doubt) practice the "middle path." But those who are debating me (or us, as the case may be) are asserting that we're trying to ignore the dice (as the DMG puts it). You can see it in the assertions they make ("gaming the DM," "magic words," etc.) and the examples they use. Which is not true, from the DM's perspective. While the players should be trying to avoid rolling as much as possible (since the d20 is so unreliable), the DM is balancing out the dice and calls for automatic success over time, chiefly because there are factors in the environment that cannot be controlled by the PCs and that introduce uncertainty as to the outcome of a task and a meaningful consequence of failure - which is when we call for a roll.

All that to say, what you're seeing in this thread are strawman arguments and statements of preference against approaches that myself and others do not employ. So one wonders what they're arguing about at all.

Agree.

Many argue from a point of "this happened to me", "bad DMs" and the like, but I usually take this with a pinch of salt for many of these stories are rooted in history and relate to when we were young and didn't know any better. Ofcourse exceptions exist (and I'm not here to discuss those)! Many of us here are 35+, we have outgrown (hopefully) the tyrannical DMing-shtick a long time ago. Online forums such as this and others, as well as podcasts and live youtube-games have helped train/mold a generation of players that previously didn't have this opportunity to share experiences and learn new techniques.

 

[ParanoydStyle]

You guys are still talking about this? It's still 15.

 

[robus]

You guys are still talking about this? It's still 15.

Ah, you’re new around here This is a seasonable phenomenon, each year, in the Spring (for us in the north) the birds start to sing, the flowers start to bud and Enworld has the traditional player approach vs PC ability debate. It eventually peters out, and we’re almost there. But in summer we switch to the “high-level play is broken battle royale”

 

[Guest 6801328]

The point is that it made sense to the story for there to be a trap but it's not a critical part of the story. I'm also rewarding the rogue for investing in skills. It's fast and simple so we can focus on the interesting parts of the story. If the player (and the group) have fun going into detail, we have fun with it. If they just want to roll dice we just roll dice.

Fair enough. Maybe our only point of difference is that I'll just tell the rogue he finds a trap (because he's good at it) but you'll make him roll. I probably wouldn't actually put the trap there in that case, but whatever.

Sometimes a trapped door is just a trapped door, sometimes a lock is just a lock. You come across a chest in some random location. Unless there's label on it saying "I'm trapped, please remove hinges first" I have no idea what you do. Since you never give real world details other than vague "hints and clues", we can only guess.

Yeah, I don't think you're understanding how this thing about hints and signaling works. The above is not it, anyway. No worries.

As far as "what's the point", what's the point of:

Player: "I attack the orc and get an 18"
DM: "You hit"
Player: "I do 8 points of damage"
​

And look how many people complain endlessly that the fighter is too boring because he doesn't have enough special abilities. I suspect that some of those people are the same people that think the game is played by looking at their character sheet and choosing abilities/actions/skills, not describing what they want to do. But whatever.

I save detailed interactions to parts of the game that are engaging and fun.

Me, too! And if they're not engaging and fun I try not to waste time on them. Like you said, table time is precious.
(Honestly it can be hard to re-train some players to understand they can stop searching for secret doors and detecting traps on every 5' square in the game.)

I don't expect players to remember "hints" I've dropped about every door in the entire world. How would that even work?

If you're genuinely asking:
1) You don't drop hints about "every door in the entire world": most of them are totally uninteresting.
2) The hints are interesting and significant so they either stick in their minds, or can be recalled when needed.
3) There's something about the special door that tells them they should stop and think.
4) Normal humans put 2+2 together.

 

[Satyrn]

22.

 

[5ekyu]

Agree.

Many argue from a point of "this happened to me", "bad DMs" and the like, but I usually take this with a pinch of salt for many of these stories are rooted in history and relate to when we were young and didn't know any better. Ofcourse exceptions exist (and I'm not here to discuss those)! Many of us here are 35+, we have outgrown (hopefully) the tyrannical DMing-shtick a long time ago. Online forums such as this and others, as well as podcasts and live youtube-games have helped train/mold a generation of players that previously didn't have this opportunity to share experiences and learn new techniques.

certainly i would agree that we have generatioal differences at play in some cases but i would like to point out.

As far as i can see, everyone here is proposing methods of play and describing methods of play which all, everyone, represent The Middle Path as presented in the DMG. if i missed someone, then i am sorry but it seems to me that myself, oofta, hussaar and everyone else here is on board with the parts defined in The Middle Path a d describe using them.

Balancing the use of dice against deciding whether or not a task succeeds - check.
Encouraging players to strike a balance between relying on bonuses and immersive efforts - check.
GM can decide auto-success - yup (auto-fail too but that wasntl called out in the rule)
Good/bad plan - advantage or disad or otherwise influence outcome - check.


I have not seen anybody here posting any resolutions used in play that do not fit this model at all.

So, to me, this is not about "Are we using Middle path or not" but where we are deciding to place that "balance" between the two methods in actual play.

For my games it tends to work like this...

Balancing the use of dice against deciding whether or not a task succeeds - check.
Outside of the obviously succeeding and failing cases like tie-your-shoes and jump to the moon, i use the auto-success rules in the DMG which let proficient character without disadvantage succeed automatically at easy or below. i also use the PHB defined "failure" to allow partial success with setback frequently to enable a middle ground between pass-fail. I will use passive checks to represent the long-term efforts and actually have a house rule for extended checks where skill should matter. In short, it is frewquent that the die roll is used as much for narrative determination as it is for just simple success-fail. "Your jump across the extra distance did not go as well as you had wished and you fell short, catching yourself on a ledge some 50' down on the cliff face on the other side. So, you did not fall into the pit and you are across but you took a little damage and now have to climb up a ways to get to the ledge."


Encouraging players to strike a balance between relying on bonuses and immersive efforts - check.

Yup. Absolutely. Immersive and attentive tends to give you a lot more to work with, more ties to others you can call on, tons of opportuinties. When times for uncertainties come up, these will often lead to advantage or disadvantage. Did you interact with the shopkeeper, treat them well, or not, etc? these will matter when it comes time to talking them and others who know them into taking chances at your behest.

GM can decide auto-success - yup (auto-fail too but that wasnt called out in the rule)

Covered in the first bullet but yep. matter of fact, as i listed above i use the DMG rule for it to help show the benefit of proficiency as more than just a bonus.

Good/bad plan - advantage or disad or otherwise influence outcome - check.

of course. the list for advantage and disadvantage broad cases in the DMG is a good solid start and it focuses on "actions" and "plan" and "circumstances" - creating a pretty strong balance between those elements and the mechanics.

Sometimes, it almost feels like some folks want to claim "the middle path" as "their way" and even somehow include the rules that follow under using Ability Score (major header) as a subset of TMP.

But, from what i can see, almost everybody here is choosing a TMP option, just with sometimes widely varying ideas of where that balance point mentioned multiple times can be.

To me, my way of thinking, the more i show my players that its me going to decide pass-fail for cases that matter and not their character stats c- both driven by their choices, especially if it is only for some stats for some characters more than for others, the less enjoyment we get in a game where very detailed specifics are chosen and "purchased" etc. if i am going to play a game where the "balance point" puts it at the point where " if we use the character traits, its worse for you" on any strategic sense, that game is gonna be a lot smaller and a lot less detailed and much more narrative based and such - like say ScreenTime or others.

 

[Sadras]

certainly i would agree that we have generatioal differences at play in some cases but i would like to point out.

As far as i can see, everyone here is proposing methods of play and describing methods of play which all, everyone, represent The Middle Path as presented in the DMG. if i missed someone, then i am sorry but it seems to me that myself, oofta, hussaar and everyone else here is on board with the parts defined in The Middle Path a d describe using them.

Balancing the use of dice against deciding whether or not a task succeeds - check.
Encouraging players to strike a balance between relying on bonuses and immersive efforts - check.
GM can decide auto-success - yup (auto-fail too but that wasntl called out in the rule)
Good/bad plan - advantage or disad or otherwise influence outcome - check.


I have not seen anybody here posting any resolutions used in play that do not fit this model at all.

So, to me, this is not about "Are we using Middle path or not" but where we are deciding to place that "balance" between the two methods in actual play.

You won't find any argument from me...but extreme examples have been used by either side at some point in this thread, despite this middle path utopia we are all in agreement of

 

[iserith]

You won't find any argument from me...but extreme examples have been used by either side at some point in this thread, despite this middle path utopia we are all in agreement of

Yet another reason I don't like examples in forum threads.

 

[5ekyu]

You won't find any argument from me...but extreme examples have been used by either side at some point in this thread, despite this middle path utopia we are all in agreement of

Well, folks have been divided over "balance", often rather strongly, and what it is since before the word existed, so thats not surprising at all.

Exactly. For my money the idea of trying to put labels on either side in a debate - be it "roleplayers" or rollplayers", "metagamer vs immersive", "We choose the middle path" vs "the other paths" etc etc etc usually serves to do little than to divide and dismiss.

What matters much more than the label we drape ourselves in or plaster onto others is what happens in play and how the folks involve enjoy it or not. Actual results and outcomes so far outweigh the labels and theory that to me its almost at best pointless and usually counter-productive to grab for the label gun at every opportunity or option.

EDIT TO ADD: But on a related note, thats where the DMG presentation of the three paths IMo fails to be very useful at all. It provides two rather extreme examples and one rather broad undefined one with none of them having any rules suggestions or guidance within them.

i think it would have been better to define three different paths, all equally playable - a heavy medium and light option for "checks" with some actual guidance for which of the options and a package of options to include in them.

maybe check light uses the auto-success variants, the success at cost and uses the ability score/background proficiencies instead of the normal with optional rules for take-10 on the fly etc. That gives players and Gm a lot of pre-fab understood ways to see "dont need no roll here" and sets a higher bar for when a check is called for and even swaps the power of the success at setback to the player to a large degree.

meanwhile check heavy forbids passive checks and throwqs out the auto-success rules etc.

and middle path uses a mixture of them.

They then encourage you to pick and choose not just between the packages presented but the various parts to get to the campaign style you want between "checks" and "no checks".

That would have been useful. It would have required little more than tagging many of the "role of the dice" options with a HML tag for which ones of the three styles they felt it was appropriate for.

that would be what i call a guide's job, not just a list of options but more.

but thats likely me.