Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?

[iserith]

I can't answer that. Your definition of "reasonably specific" may differ from mine.

The rules lay out the standard for reasonable specificity, in particular in the section on finding hidden objects, but also throughout the PHB and DMG. It's not "my" standard.

To me, when a player leaves their statement "generic" it's not an excuse for the DM to take advantage of them. It's more like telling the cook to make them whatever the chef wants.

To me, it's the player not performing his or her role and responsibility in this game. I expect better and find that players rise to the occasion.

 

[Reynard]

What do you mean here?

GM: You slip into the study and close the door quietly behind you. Based on your observations of the house guards, you have about three minutes before they come to inspect the room.

Player: Okay, I go to the desk and and check all the drawers for false bottoms and then look behind all the wall pictures for hidden safes.

GM: Hold on. The desk is a big heavy oak thing but it doesn't have any drawers.

[cue extended back and forth with the GM trying to get the player's vision of the study to align perfectly with their vision of it]

Compare that to the situation in which the player simply says, "I search the study for clues." The GM can then ask for a a Perception roll (or not, depending on the specifics) and narrate the results of that roll, including whatever descriptive elements are important. Now the GM and the player still have their own mental images of the study and they are still different from one another's but those differences don't matter and don't impede play.

 

[Immortal Sun]

The rules lay out the standard for reasonable specificity, in particular in the section on finding hidden objects, but also throughout the PHB and DMG. It's not "my" standard.

You know, I generally prefer Ford, but that was a pretty good Dodge on taking responsibility for the argument you've been laying out here about expecting a certain level of specificity.

It's these sorts of stupid word games I've lost interest in. YOU said several time YOU expect a reasonable level of specificity. If YOU can't state what YOUR expectations are, then there's not much to discuss here is it?

"Go look at the rules that's what I do." Well, right now I'm posting on an internet forum while pausing between posts to clean my house. I'm not particularly inclined to go get my book, sit down, find whichever section you might be talking about and review it, only to come back and ask you if you do things EXACTLY in that fashion or in some variant.

Why don't you just explain what YOU mean when you expect a player to be "reasonably specific"?

 

[Guest 6801328]

GM: You slip into the study and close the door quietly behind you. Based on your observations of the house guards, you have about three minutes before they come to inspect the room.

Player: Okay, I go to the desk and and check all the drawers for false bottoms and then look behind all the wall pictures for hidden safes.

GM: Hold on. The desk is a big heavy oak thing but it doesn't have any drawers.

[cue extended back and forth with the GM trying to get the player's vision of the study to align perfectly with their vision of it]

Compare that to the situation in which the player simply says, "I search the study for clues." The GM can then ask for a a Perception roll (or not, depending on the specifics) and narrate the results of that roll, including whatever descriptive elements are important. Now the GM and the player still have their own mental images of the study and they are still different from one another's but those differences don't matter and don't impede play.

And this is where our aesthetic preferences differ. Your "impeding play" is my "playing the game."

(And your "extended back and forth until visions align perfectly" is my "roll Perception in every 5' square." That is, hyperbole.)

Honestly I thought you were agreeing with me/us, until I read the very last sentence and then I realized you were describing that scene as a bad thing.

 

[Guest 6801328]

P.S. The continued invocation of "mother may I" and "pixelbitching" tell me that there are still some really fundamental misunderstandings.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But none of that addresses his point. Just because you think his argument is poor doesn't mean it is or even that it's wrong. It's anecdotal but I've seen his argument in action. I've played with DMs who let good player words completely bypass things that less-clever wordsmiths have to make checks for.

And I've played with DMs who punish players who don't say "I search for traps" and "I search for secret doors"...separately...every 5'. So does that prove that the "I use skill X" method is bad/wrong? Or that some DMs are, um, not so great?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Kay, great.

So your argument is: "Immortal Sun, the things you saw happen at your tables didn't actually happen because I've never seen those things happen at my table."

Different experiences are different, stay tuned for our upcoming special: Water is wet!

Seriously? That's your response to Bawylie?

I can understand why he simply gave up and stopped discussing. I honestly can't tell whether you genuinely don't understand the point he was making, or if it's willful.

 

[Immortal Sun]

And I've played with DMs who punish players who don't say "I search for traps" and "I search for secret doors"...separately...every 5'. So does that prove that the "I use skill X" method is bad/wrong? Or that some DMs are, um, not so great?

You can't have a bunch of people running around with shared experiences of "Bad DMs" using the same methods and not start to wonder if it's really a case of a bad DM or bad methodology. At some point you gotta stop and say "certain approaches may be problematic". Not everything can be chalked up to "that one guy was a jerk".

 

[Reynard]

P.S. The continued invocation of "mother may I" and "pixelbitching" tell me that there are still some really fundamental misunderstandings.

I just don't think the expectation of mental images aligning is realistic or the effort of trying to get there is worth the effort. What really matters is intent and how that moves play forward, so the details are essentially irrelevant.

 

[Immortal Sun]

Seriously? That's your response to Bawylie?

I can understand why he simply gave up and stopped discussing. I honestly can't tell whether you genuinely don't understand the point he was making, or if it's willful.

He dismissed my comment, regardless of how anecdotal it was, as not happening because it hadn't happened to him.

Frankly, that's not a discussion nor a person I want to have one with.

If he meant something else, the onus is on him to clarify.