D&D 5E Is Expertise too good?

[iserith]

If a player says. ‘Does the guard believe what we said? Can I use insight to see if I can tell?’ That is fine.

But if that same character has a big expertise bonus in insight, then that screws up the DM adjudication. For one thing it becomes more about exploiting the bonus, and less about narrative nuance. But mostly, the DM gets a feel for difficulty for what should be challenging and what should be easy. The big bonus expertise is playing a different kind of game.

It would not be fine at all at my table to say "Does the guard believe what we said? Can I use insight to see if I can tell?" regardless of the character's Insight bonus or whether he or she had Expertise in it. Because the player (1) didn't describe what the character was attempting to do and (2) asked to make an ability check which isn't the player's role in the game. It doesn't screw up the DM's adjudication in my view as there is nothing there to adjudicate.

 

[iserith]

We might be agreeing with each other. The impression I get is, you want the player to articulate the mechanics that will be in play. If so, by contrast, I want the player to articulate the story that is in play. I as DM can decide if what mechanics are necessary, if any. Of course, players can suggest mechanics, of course. But it is the narrative that decides the outcome. Sometimes the narrative results in uncertainty and dice rolls.

I definitely do not "want the player to articulate the mechanics that will be in play." I'm not sure how you got that impression.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It is plausible for the player to ask this. And it is reasonable for the DM to answer this. In this case, a skill check helps the DM adjudicate the ambiguity.

Do not mistake iserith for a reasonable DM. They're just trolling you. Your answer would have been sufficient to anyone discussing in good faith.

 

[FrogReaver]

You assume I didn't already describe some level of the guard's credulity though when in Step 1 ("describe the environment"). I'm pretty good about that sort of thing, despite being "formulaic" because I want to avoid players being unaware of what's going on in the scene. If you're heard me drone endlessly about telegraphing and all that good stuff in other threads, you should know that I'm very cognizant about describing the important bits.

Anyway it's not about player eloquence. "Does the guard believe what we are saying?" hints at a goal, but says nothing of the approach. I need a complete approach to a goal before I can narrate the result of the adventurer's action. What I say next might be what I would call "auto-success," which to bring it around to what I've mentioned in earlier posts, is different in my view from an Expert character tapping the DC if I call for a check.

1. When a player says "Does the guard believe what we are saying?" the goal has been stated (although it could be restated to be a bit more technically correct as there is no way for the character to know if the guard actually believes the player, but I think we both know explicitly what goal the player wanted to achieve with that question was about whether anything is occurring with the guard that would cause the PC to believe/disbelieve the guard even though the player technically stated his goal as something that would be impossible without telepathy or a zone of truth etc.) Surely you use some human inference to pick up on what is being said/asked instead of acting like a bad computer program that demands he rephrase his goal even though his meaning is clear.

2. As for the approach, its implicit in what he is asking. "Does the guard believe me?" = "Is anything occurring with the guard that would cause me to believe or disbelieve him?" = "I observe the guard to see if there's anything he does that causes me to disbelieve him"

 

[Yaarel]

It would not be fine at all at my table to say "Does the guard believe what we said? Can I use insight to see if I can tell?" regardless of the character's Insight bonus or whether he or she had Expertise in it. Because the player (1) didn't describe what the character was attempting to do and (2) asked to make an ability check which isn't the player's role in the game. It doesn't screw up the DM's adjudication in my view as there is nothing there to adjudicate.

I dont really understand your objection. In my eyes ...

(1) By asking, ‘Does the guard believe what we said’, the player describes − precisely − what the player is trying to do. Namely, discover if the guard believes them.

When adjudicating the answer, the DM might call for an insight skill check.

(2) I play with both people who are experienced D&D players and players who are newbies. The experienced players know the rules, and their suggestions are appreciated and taken into consideration.

 

[variant]

It sounds like you set a DC for an obstacle rather than for a task a player describes the character as attempting. Is that accurate?

I am not sure how you differentiate the two. If a player decided he wanted to climb a cliff, I would set the DC and tell them what skill and ability score to roll, but the DC would be the same no matter which PC initiated the action.

I'm not sure I follow your answer here. Was this a response to my question as to whether the player asks to make a check or just rolls it unprompted in your games?

Yes.

 

[Yaarel]

[...]

 

[Yaarel]

Do not mistake iserith for a reasonable DM. They're just trolling you. Your answer would have been sufficient to anyone discussing in good faith.

My impression is Iserith is an unusually talented DM. He often posts stuff going on in his campaigns, and it sounds awesome.

This is just a discussion about DM style and clarification.

 

[iserith]

1. When a player says "Does the guard believe what we are saying?" the goal has been stated (although it could be restated to be a bit more technically correct as there is no way for the character to know if the guard actually believes the player, but I think we both know explicitly what goal the player wanted to achieve with that question was about whether anything is occurring with the guard that would cause the PC to believe/disbelieve the guard even though the player technically stated his goal as something that would be impossible without telepathy or a zone of truth etc.) Surely you use some human inference to pick up on what is being said/asked instead of acting like a bad computer program that demands he rephrase his goal even though his meaning is clear.

2. As for the approach, its implicit in what he is asking. "Does the guard believe me?" = "Is anything occurring with the guard that would cause me to believe or disbelieve him?" = "I observe the guard to see if there's anything he does that causes me to disbelieve him"

I dont really understand your objection. In my eyes ...

(1) By asking, ‘Does the guard believe what we said’, the player describes − precisely − what the player is trying to do. Namely, discover if the guard believes them.

When adjudicating the answer, the DM might call for an insight skill check.

(2) I play with both people who are experienced D&D players and players who are newbies. The experienced players know the rules, and their suggestions are appreciated and taken into consideration.

I would say a question is typically a goal without an approach - the "how" is missing. Okay, your goal is to see if the guard believes you. How? I can't determine what happens next unless I know. It might mean auto-success, auto-failure, or a check. And their approach to the goal is going to allow me to set a DC to resolve the task, if it's uncertain. So I need this information. The players have ONE thing to do in the basic conversation of the game: describe what they want to do (Basic Rules, page 3). Let's ask them to do it!

Consider also what a great advantage it can be to ask questions instead of take actions: You can fail at actions and sometimes that has consequences. Questions are far safer! (Super common.) There's really no reason why it's so common a way to play in my view.

Anyway, this is getting pretty far off-topic so I'll try to bring it back around: So far as I can tell, how one thinks about auto-success with regard to the adjudication process can be a way to address at least one of the objections to Expertise.

 

[iserith]

My impression is Iserith is an unusually talented DM. He often posts stuff going on in his campaigns, and it sounds awesome.

This is just a discussion about DM style and clarification.

Thank you for the kind words! I guess someone who blocked me still talks about me. It's kind of sweet.