Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7587595" data-attributes="member: 6801845">For the hundredth time:&nbsp; if the DM doesn't call for an insight check or if the player is not allowed to ask for one then the players know there was no skill contest.&nbsp; Since there was no skill contest the players now know the NPC was not trying to deceive them.The consequence of no insight skill check is a confirmation that the NPC is not trying to be deceptive.&nbsp; Technically there is no &quot;failure&quot; for the PC.&nbsp; The DM is the one who failed by conveying information via meta-gaming that the players should not have had.&nbsp; Maybe you don't care.&nbsp; I do.Well except in the case where I point out that if you do this while questioning subjects as to whether they're the criminal then the answer is &quot;no of course that's not how it works&quot;.Ummm ... I'm not sure I would have run things that much differently.&nbsp; I also have no idea where your getting this idea that I call for checks that have no consequences.&nbsp; Can the players ask or make checks that have no consequence?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; People attempt the impossible all the time.&nbsp; People overcompensate all the time.&nbsp; PCs are people.&nbsp; Sometimes they'll kick in the door only to find out that it wasn't locked in the first place.&nbsp; So?&nbsp; The last time this happened we all got a chuckle out of it as the fighter hit the door and had to make a dex save because there was no resistance.I've given examples (most recently of investigating the house of a potential rogue) where passive checks were the rule of the day to notice traps unless they specifically called it out.&nbsp; If someone failed a disarm trap there were several possible outcomes depending on how much they missed it by.Where I may run things differently is that if the rogue approached the door he could simply say &quot;I investigate the trap and get a ___&quot;.&nbsp; Then I'd tell him the info.&nbsp; If the information was obvious, he may not have needed to roll but I don't see why that matters. He just rolled to save some time.&nbsp; When the barbarian declares they're going to charge and gives me a number to smash down the door I might give him a wisdom check (with disadvantage because he's a berserker) to let him know that it looks like it could hurt before I tell him the outcome.While the scenario you gave would probably play out much the same other than I don't care if people just call out what skill they are using, this is hardly typical of other situations that have been described.&nbsp; That's better summarized by &quot;avoid skill checks whenever possible by describing things in such a way that my DM will judge my performance to be of such quality that I automatically succeed&quot; which is being pushed.&nbsp; In other words, it's the player's skill not the PC's skill that matters.But your scenario?&nbsp; I don't see any of that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 7587595, member: 6801845"] For the hundredth time: if the DM doesn't call for an insight check or if the player is not allowed to ask for one then the players know there was no skill contest. Since there was no skill contest the players now know the NPC was not trying to deceive them. The consequence of no insight skill check is a confirmation that the NPC is not trying to be deceptive. Technically there is no "failure" for the PC. The DM is the one who failed by conveying information via meta-gaming that the players should not have had. Maybe you don't care. I do. Well except in the case where I point out that if you do this while questioning subjects as to whether they're the criminal then the answer is "no of course that's not how it works". Ummm ... I'm not sure I would have run things that much differently. I also have no idea where your getting this idea that I call for checks that have no consequences. Can the players ask or make checks that have no consequence? Sure. People attempt the impossible all the time. People overcompensate all the time. PCs are people. Sometimes they'll kick in the door only to find out that it wasn't locked in the first place. So? The last time this happened we all got a chuckle out of it as the fighter hit the door and had to make a dex save because there was no resistance. I've given examples (most recently of investigating the house of a potential rogue) where passive checks were the rule of the day to notice traps unless they specifically called it out. If someone failed a disarm trap there were several possible outcomes depending on how much they missed it by. Where I may run things differently is that if the rogue approached the door he could simply say "I investigate the trap and get a ___". Then I'd tell him the info. If the information was obvious, he may not have needed to roll but I don't see why that matters. He just rolled to save some time. When the barbarian declares they're going to charge and gives me a number to smash down the door I might give him a wisdom check (with disadvantage because he's a berserker) to let him know that it looks like it could hurt before I tell him the outcome. While the scenario you gave would probably play out much the same other than I don't care if people just call out what skill they are using, this is hardly typical of other situations that have been described. That's better summarized by "avoid skill checks whenever possible by describing things in such a way that my DM will judge my performance to be of such quality that I automatically succeed" which is being pushed. In other words, it's the player's skill not the PC's skill that matters. But your scenario? I don't see any of that. [/QUOTE]

Verification