Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 8796159" data-attributes="member: 6801845">If running a murder mystery half the fun is the players debating who's guilty and who's hiding something and why.  None of what you respond answers the question: what value does it add to the game if the players can eliminate Chuck as a suspect simply because the DM doesn't ask for an insight check?  Can we avoid metagaming?  Sure.  I could explain the entire plot, every secret, every hidden gem?  Of course!  After all the PCs don't know anything, right?  Just hand them the mod, let them read through it all and off we go!   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />  It would destroy the fun for me, I can't imagine how it would not for most people.The entire "roll only if there's uncertainty" mantra hard core must follow rule comes from a single sentence in a section of the DM devoted to how to handle this stuff.  I think it's taken out of context and applied way too broadly as a strict rule.It comes from Using Ability ScoresWhen a player wants to do something, it’s often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character’s ability scores. For example, a character doesn’t normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?</li> </ul> If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate. The following sections provide guidance on determining whether to call for an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw; how to assign DCs; when to use advantage and disadvantage; and other related topics. The part that people ignore (even selectively remove when quoting) is the bolded qualifying example that explains what the entire paragraph is talking about. They're obviously talking about normal mundane tasks that you simply don't fail. That's qualified by the bullet points  under "When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:"Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?- Detecting whether someone is lying is not easy nor is it automatic.  If you roll low enough on an insight check, you have not determined that the person is telling the truth.Is a task so inappropriate or impossible — such as hitting the moon with an arrow — that it can’t work?- This obviously doesn't apply, if Chuck was prevaricating it would be possible to detect that they were hiding something with a high enough level check.Determining someone's true intent can always fail - if someone is telling the truth but the insight check is low enough you get "They seem to be telling the truth but you can't be certain".In any case I just disagree with the strict reading of one line taken out of context.  <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

Verification