Insight Skill

[Celebrim]

This, of course, leads to the debate of "why should real life Intelligence and Charisma have any effect on your imaginary character, when real life Strength and Constitution don't?".

Mainly because its easier and safer to arrange for a riddle to be solved in my dining room, than it is to arrange a battle with a 30' long dragon.

It takes some real willpower to be a smart guy playing a stupid character not solving every riddle posed to us; instead, waiting for the other characters to solve the problem.

No, it just takes a good RPer who is willing to enjoy a dumb character for what it is, and creative enough to insert hints to the solution into his role play that - like Forest Gump - the character himself is ignorant of. That would for me prove the player's intelligence even more than solving the riddle would.

If you can't play a stupid character and enjoy it, you shouldn't play one.

 

[szilard]

Right. Only it applies to places and objects, not just people and body language.

It might, but do we have any evidence of this?

-Stuart

 

[shilsen]

No, it just takes a good RPer who is willing to enjoy a dumb character for what it is, and creative enough to insert hints to the solution into his role play that - like Forest Gump - the character himself is ignorant of. That would for me prove the player's intelligence even more than solving the riddle would.

If you can't play a stupid character and enjoy it, you shouldn't play one.

What about if you want to play a character who's smarter than you? Is it asking too much for your 24 Int PC to benefit from things like an Insight skill? As ehren37 pointed out above, it's hardly as if this is a completely new mechanic in gaming, nor is it likely to seriously limit the player's role in the game.

 

[Cadfan]

I wouldn't really like a "solve puzzles" skill. First, because its a little too metagame for me. Second, because its ridiculous on its face. Earlier editions had ridiculous puzzles where you could unlock the door to an ancient crypt by solving a riddle or a tower of hanoi or whatnot. That was dumb. It made players figure things out on their own, which is cool when it works, but the concept of a door that opens if you solve a tower of hanoi is terrible.

Keeping the tower of hanoi, and adding a "solve towers of hanoi" skill, would be extra dumb. It would be keeping the dumbest part of old D&D puzzle design, and adding in the dumbest possible part of modern D&D skill design.

Fortunately, I am very, very sure that Insight is not a "solve puzzles" skill. I can't know it for a 100% certain fact, but it would seem to go against a lot of the 4e design philosophy on traps and non combat encounters, as described in design and development journals over the past year.

I'm guessing that its a skill that ate Decipher Script, Sense Motive, certain aspects of Knowledge checks including checks to obtain information about monsters, or some combination thereof.

The closest I could see it being to a "solve puzzles" skill might be a "get clue" skill. That wouldn't be so bad. It would add another aspect to trap/puzzle design, essentially by being a partner to the Search skill in puzzle solving.

 

[wedgeski]

Sounds to me like a replacement for Knowledge checks designed to give you information about monsters. Maybe 'Insight' translates to a mechanical advantage during a fight.

 

[szilard]

Here's the quote in context:

We sent Jonathan Tweet out last night with the most recent iteration of the noncombat challenge rules and had him do a social encounter involving prisoners that may or may not be who they seem. When he came to my desk this morning to report back, we fell upon him like a pack of dogs. That's how we treat playtesters. "Wait, wait, come back! Tell us more about round 2! What about the Insight DCs? He has data! Get him!"

What part of this indicates anything about puzzles or problem-solving?

From what is here, I'm getting "Sense Motive." There might be more to it than that, but I'm reading a lot of unfounded, wild speculation here.

-Stuart

 

[heirodule]

I believe that this is correct.

I really hope that they don't make a mechanic like this:

DM: You see a riddle on the wall.
PC: I make an insight check to see if I can solve it. *dice clatter*
DM: After a few moments the answer comes to you. The answer is 'the moon'. Make another insight check.
PC: *dice clatter*
DM: It occurs to you that there is moon in the overhead fresco. Perhaps you should check it out?

Strictly speaking, that's 'realistic'. It avoids player knowledge and allows a player to play a character of any intelligence in a consistant manner regardless of his actual ability. Your 'dumb' barbarian can't solve riddles. Your smart Wizard solves them with ease, even if you've know head for riddles. Anything else is strictly speaking, metagaming.

But, it isn't fun. Unrealistic reliance on player knowledge and ability, however unelegant it is from a simulationist perspective, makes for a better game.

What would be better is allowing an action point to give a specific clue for a puzzle.

 

[Celebrim]

What about if you want to play a character who's smarter than you? Is it asking too much for your 24 Int PC to benefit from things like an Insight skill? As ehren37 pointed out above, it's hardly as if this is a completely new mechanic in gaming, nor is it likely to seriously limit the player's role in the game.

In most of my experience, 'idea' rolls in other systems tend to be very metagamey. In CoC a typical use is with a successful idea roll, have the DM tell you where the next scene is supposed to take place. I never really liked that, but it does keep investigative games moving along when they stall.

A general purpose problem solving skill is bad for a game, and I've never seen a game system treat it that way. In published scenarios, suprisingly few idea checks are called for in the text if you assume idea rolls are for solving puzzles. Sometimes, just to keep the game moving along, I've seen 'idea checks' used by the DM to give clues out when the players are stuck, but that's not really a rules system per se.

The thing about an 'idea check' is that if it is a hard and fast rule, it invalidates solving the problem any other way. That's why I used in my example, "You see a riddle.", without giving the riddle. If I gave the riddle, then it wouldn't be fair to the guy who'd invested ranks in the problem solving skill, because some player who didn't would be able to by pass it completely. See my prior discussions on some of the intricasies of refereeing the search skill fairly.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I think the bigger issue with puzzles and riddles is the difference between player knowledge and character knowledge... kindof a reverse of meta-gaming. Its about what the character knows that the player doesn't.

Eh, whats that? Didn't follow me? Thats okay, let me give you an example:


In a recent game I ran a published module that had a secret door. This secret door is opened by pressing portions of a fresco in the right order. Failure to press them in the right order results in trigering a poisen trap. The module's frescoes referenced Planes and the group had a clue as to what the order should be. As I modified the game to run in Eberron, I used the Eberron planar configuration and names, linking to the moons instead of archtypical planar creatures.

However, only 2 of my players are *into* Eberron and neither of them have messed with the planes or even the names of the moons. The Bard, Mage, and Cleric all took ranks in Knowledge: Planes. For the characters, the riddle of the door would have been a couple moments of consulting before pressing things in the right order. For my players, I had to have an NPC tweak the curtain aside for a moment to shove the hints at them. *not* a memorable moment in the game.

If 4E has a way to accomplish this sort of scene with more finesse, I am all for it.

{Other riddles have gone much better. In my first Deserts of Desolation campaign, I added a small hint at the start on how to decrypt the ancient writing... then as the group encountered more writing I would simply hand over a paper with the script written on it.
This ended up being a very enjoyable aspect of the campaign, and by the time it ended I was able to write the script without refering to anything...and one of my players could read it!}

 

[heirodule]

Tweet should be designing, not playtesting.