D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[Micah Sweet]

End of the day we are playing a game and I want people to feel declare actions in any way that works for them. Simply replacing one style of people declaring what they are doing does not improve the quality of the game in my opinion.

Called it!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I disagree, I rather have the player be able to say 'I am getting suspicious and want a perception / insight check' than them not even having that option. The roll has to be hidden to avoid them learning something from it even if it fails.


It is a declaration, the action just is not physical but mental. I am trying to pick up on subtle signs that indicate / tell me something about the situation I am in.

But, there's no opportunity cost to making an Insight check, and therefore no reason not to screech "Insight!" In every single NPC conversation. It gets really bothersome.

 

[M_Natas]

I don't ask how the PC is swinging their sword, I assume that they know how because they're proficient in using that weapon. If they're trained in stealth, I assume they know what they're doing. Besides, there are many things where there just is no real "how do you do it". How do you make a history check other than thinking about it. How does it add value to state "I'm thinking about what I know of the history of this" instead of "History check?"

That is my whole point. Making a history check to see if somebody knows something is kind of stupid. Remembering really hard is not an action.

 

[mamba]

But, there's no opportunity cost to making an Insight check, and therefore no reason not to screech "Insight!" In every single NPC conversation. It gets really bothersome.

The opportunity cost is getting it wrong / failing the check and my answer being 'you notice ...' that is absolutely not true and misleading the players, rather than me saying 'you notice nothing'. I agree that it should not be something you automatically do in every room or conversation.

The main reason to keep them is that the characters could be a lot more perceptive and picking up on things during the actual encounter than the players can ever be based on your narration alone. Either that, or you have to make everything so obvious that the whole issue is being avoided.

 

[mamba]

That is my whole point. Making a history check to see if somebody knows something is kind of stupid. Remembering really hard is not an action.

how do you propose we determine whether a char knows something in a fictional world? You cannot very well rely on the player knowing it

You could roll all the checks beforehand and then tell them upfront what they know and everything they will ever find out by all the different checks, but that is rather tedious too

 

[M_Natas]

Enhh. I think in most conversations people are just listening to what people are saying and taking it at face value unless they have reason not to trust the other person.

Asking for the insight check seems like it'd be an attempt to look beyond the words. What is the body language, what could they be getting out of the situation, or how could they be harmed by it, etc.

In my experience, this can very much be an "active" effort. I don't really see it being a problem for ot to be so for PCs.

If you would use it like that, first of all it wouldn't work in an interrogation, because you be on your best "insight" from the beginning.
In normal conversations it would be a retcon. Because the NPC does something and now, if we go with your explanation, the Player Character watched this interaction retroactively more "active".
That why a passive score is better.

 

[M_Natas]

The DM just needs to ask for what the PC is doing, rather than accepting requests for rolls like that.

Yeah, I know. That's what I do. But its hard to always have to untrain new players ^^

"I watch the Duke closely, looking for any tells that could indicate that he is lying." - active insight.

Like, that should be a roll for the duke to deceive against the pasosve insight of the character. If there is one. And then you tell the player "the duke is avoding eye contact when he speaks about his dead wife" or something.

"While we are standing in the room waiting for the Duke to see us, I will look around the room carefully taking in each object." - active perception.

No roll needed. If it is plainly visible, their is no need for a roll. If it is hidden, the character has to do something to find it.

Those are player initiated active insight and perception checks. Alternatively, every time the DM asks the players to roll insight or perception, those are also active checks. Active = roll the dice. Passive = use the passive number without rolling. It doesn't necessarily mean that the players are asking for the roll or initiating the check.

I know how the game works. I would take away most active rolls for insight and perception. Maybe there are some corner cases where they could be used, but mostly they should be passive.

I wouldn't. When I talk to people sometimes I am and sometimes I'm not.

Again, this conflates active with the players doing something to get a check. All it takes is the DM asking for a roll for it to be active. Even if you assume that the PC is going to be observant during the whole conversation, you don't have to rely on passive numbers. You can ask the player for a roll to see if the PC notices something.

That's actually a misuse of the skill. It just plain doesn't function that way. If a player asked me that I'd reply, "That's up to you." Insight will only reveal if the NPC is nervous or something else that the player will have to interpret himself.

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah, I know. That's what I do. But its hard to always have to untrain new players ^^

Like, that should be a roll for the duke to deceive against the pasosve insight of the character. If there is one. And then you tell the player "the duke is avoding eye contact when he speaks about his dead wife" or something.

No roll needed. If it is plainly visible, their is no need for a roll. If it is hidden, the character has to do something to find it.

I know how the game works. I would take away most active rolls for insight and perception. Maybe there are some corner cases where they could be used, but mostly they should be passive.

That’s one of the reasons I hate social skills. They almost instantly devolve into mind reading and mind control. No, you can’t look at a person’s face, see their eye twitch and then instantly know with 100% certainty that they are lying, what they’re lying about, and what the truth really is.

 

[M_Natas]

We just disagree. I don't think forcing people to come up with explanations on the spot add anything. If I was in a game where we had to do this I'd likely just come up with flash cards for the 2-4 different ways to say "History check?" without using those exact words. There's plenty of RP in my games, just not for specifics of many skill checks.

If people want to add fluff that's fine, but it's the PC doing the activity, not the player so the skill level of the PC is what matters to me.

But the PC is not doing any activity when he asks for a History check to see if he remembers anything about Topic X.
It is a non action. It is a game mechanic to recon knowledge into the character.
"Oh yeah, you looked that up in a book some years ago".

 

[SkidAce]

Then how and what would a PC use a History check for?