Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
An "Insightful" Question
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7497907" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Ok, sure. But for me that relies way too much on DM whim, and further it fails a verisimilitude check. Properly speaking, the NPC's notice of the players suspicion shouldn't depend on a contest of the NPC's deceptive skill vs. the PC's perception, but rather on the contest of the NPC's perceptiveness versus the PC's deceptive skill. It's quite possible for a character to be deceitful but clueless or guileless by sensitive. And further this later contest is quite independent of the first one, so that a character could suspect that someone is suspicious independently of whether you successfully detected them lying. </p><p></p><p>So while your 'solution' may work for you, from where I'm standing it less accurately reflects the game world and its conceits than mine and treats the player far less fairly, in that one of the things I don't do players is impose failures on them without a chance of resisting. The only consequences failures have are the immediate and logical ones. If testing perception the only possible failure is of your perception. No matter how badly you fail your perception check, the worst that could happen is that you miss or mistake what is going on. We'd have to test something else to see if you gave away to the NPC that you were on to them, because again you might be the sort of person who has a perfect poker face even though you can never tell when someone else is bluffing. And further, it violates the standard that in general, a player ought to understand the stakes of any fortune test. To suggest that his face gave away his suspicions is to impose an action on him he didn't declare in the proposition we are resolving.</p><p></p><p>To violate that would violate my fundamental ethos of GMing, which is to be the GM I would want to have if I were a player. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Given that by your own admission your standards and processes of play are incoherent, you are going to have to come up with a much stronger argument to convince me not to continue with mine however passionate your advocacy for them may be.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7497907, member: 4937"] Ok, sure. But for me that relies way too much on DM whim, and further it fails a verisimilitude check. Properly speaking, the NPC's notice of the players suspicion shouldn't depend on a contest of the NPC's deceptive skill vs. the PC's perception, but rather on the contest of the NPC's perceptiveness versus the PC's deceptive skill. It's quite possible for a character to be deceitful but clueless or guileless by sensitive. And further this later contest is quite independent of the first one, so that a character could suspect that someone is suspicious independently of whether you successfully detected them lying. So while your 'solution' may work for you, from where I'm standing it less accurately reflects the game world and its conceits than mine and treats the player far less fairly, in that one of the things I don't do players is impose failures on them without a chance of resisting. The only consequences failures have are the immediate and logical ones. If testing perception the only possible failure is of your perception. No matter how badly you fail your perception check, the worst that could happen is that you miss or mistake what is going on. We'd have to test something else to see if you gave away to the NPC that you were on to them, because again you might be the sort of person who has a perfect poker face even though you can never tell when someone else is bluffing. And further, it violates the standard that in general, a player ought to understand the stakes of any fortune test. To suggest that his face gave away his suspicions is to impose an action on him he didn't declare in the proposition we are resolving. To violate that would violate my fundamental ethos of GMing, which is to be the GM I would want to have if I were a player. Given that by your own admission your standards and processes of play are incoherent, you are going to have to come up with a much stronger argument to convince me not to continue with mine however passionate your advocacy for them may be. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
An "Insightful" Question
Top