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: 7497966" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I'm not sure that I insulted you, and certainly didn't do so on purpose, but if you feel insulted I apologize. You are correct that I made assumptions about your process of play that may not be true, and I know how annoying it is to be misunderstood. It's a particular peeve of mine, so I apologize for any misreading of your statement.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok, so the way knowledge skills are written in 5e is forcing some degree of incoherence on your procedures of play because you don't think they work according to the pattern the other skills are designed with, namely that the other skills assume active, goal oriented, tangible activity? Is that a fairer summation of the situation in your opinion? Because, I agree that that is true, though in my case that wouldn't bother me. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I certainly do most of that with Int based 3e skills and would consider that valid things to be doing with even 3e skills, with the exception of not feeling the need to allow non-clerics to hallow ground because I'm ok with my game world having a lot of clerics but that's more of a setting decision than a process of play. </p><p></p><p>I don't however have any problem reconciling "I remember stuff" because as far as I'm concerned all fortune rolls are just resolving a doubtful proposition, and "I might already know something about this before..." is a both a plausible (not 0% chance) but doubtful proposition (not 100% chance). The rest for me is just details needed only to make the fortune check and its resolution model more closely the thing being contested. I have on one hand no problem demanding the PC phrase things in an active use (approach and goal) when the intention of the proposition or contest demands it, or clarifying a vague proposition with a more active and specific wording, or forcing him to give a proposition rather than just asking if he can make a check, and I also have no problem with the proposition, "I might already know something about this because I'm educated..." For me, unity of mechanics is not really even an important goal, and indeed is something that I tend to think is self-defeating. For me, what is important about mechanics is that they model something, and since in the real world different things are well, different, that the mechanics that model them be different is desirable.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, first of all, you responded to me; I didn't respond to you. In the post you were quoting, I had responded to the OP's concerns by way of MarkB, concerning the questions and concerns the OP had raised (and MarkB had re-emphasized) which were about detecting deception. At no point should you have thought that was a response to anything you had said, so your example regarding discovering the source of nervousness where ever the heck that occurs in this thread is not particularly germane either to my post that you quoted or to how I answered you, because I was going on the apparently erroneous assumption that what you said actually followed logically from what I had said and not in fact on some other conversation you were having that I was not a part of. </p><p></p><p>However, misunderstandings aside, now that I'm more caught up, I am immensely curious as to how you actually would run that, even though it as far as I can tell irrelevant to how you would run the scenario the OP was talking about. I am still also quite willing to hear you explain your thoughts on a deception vs. insight contest, simply because I enjoy hearing about approaches that are wildly different than my own.</p><p></p><p>My apparently erroneous assumption that you used 'success with consequence' techniques or 'partial success' techniques to invent complications for a scene not based on the stakes of the proposition was based on my faulty assumption that when you replied to me you were discussing the original poster's 'insight' versus 'deception' contest where the conventional interpretation is a hearer was attempting to decide whether the speaker was lying. I therefore assumed when you said that a consequence of failure might be that the speaker realizes you were suspicious, that you were saying that the speaker could detect that the hearer had failed to realize that they were lying. I have only just now in going back through the thread to try to figure out what you are talking about discovered the post on the thread where you explained that you'd adopted novel house rules with respect to how you apply and interpret the 'insight' skill, and while that's illuminating regarding where you are coming from, I certainly wasn't paying any attention to you or that at the time I originally posted.</p><p></p><p>When I said that "If testing perception the only possible failure is of your perception." I was assuming that we were talking about "insight" as written as a passive perception skill, and not insight as a skill of active interrogation, innuendo, or rhetoric - approaches that would have me calling for some other skill than insight - because that is what the OP was talking about and what I was talking about. So that is the source of my confusion. </p><p></p><p>Once again, you quoted me; I didn't quote you. I didn't enter into your conversation. I don't see how I'm supposed to know what thread of conversation you are continuing or why the burden of figuring out that you were talking about something quite tangential to what I was talking about falls on me. If I'm guilty of making assumptions, the chief of those is that your reply had something to do with what I was talking about, which it apparently it either did not or was only tangentially related to my comment.</p><p></p><p>And frankly, I'm still confused because you've gotten very upset that I suggested that you impose failure on players arbitrarily, and yet you have also suggested as a consequence of asking a penetrating question that the result of failure be, "...those around now firmly believe the lie" Now, that is an example that would be classified by me as a consequence that doesn't logically follow on failure to ask a penetrating question and which is arbitrarily imposed, as surely those hearing the conversation are allowed to still keep their own judgements regarding the truthfulness of the target, despite your embarrassing ineptitude? After all, they have their own insight skills and draw their own conclusions. They might have detected a falsehood you failed to. They may think you are very rude and socially awkward or that you were very stupid to have challenged your target in public so ineptly on the basis of the evidence at hand (what you've just done), but the failure of your insight doesn't make people around you less insightful, I would think. </p><p></p><p>For my part, I try to role-play NPCs and unless the NPC is a very good liar indeed, I try to roleplay someone who is lying or nervous or trying to avoid a subject according to the NPCs motivations, so that quite often the 'sense motive' check to determine if an NPC is lying is only of a help to players who themselves aren't very perceptive (or when I do a poor job acting). That 'sense motives' only confirm what the players already have good reason to suspect has become so prevalent in the campaign as to be a running gag. And as for me, I'd tend to actually run a piercing question by the PC as actual role-play with an actual piercing question (or two or three), and as a conversation and only after the conversation has run a while would skill checks to gain insights about the NPC's motives or truthfulness happen, or social skill checks to see if the NPC was swayed, intimidated or tricked into something be called for depending on the players agenda and the exact form the conversation had taken. In my case, "the approach" is an actual in character statement given in the form of dialogue, and players must do that before they earn a skill call. So, as you might expect from that process of play, since I'm always acting out NPCs, players try to guess whether I'm lying all the time. It was not intended as an insult, and further I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought you had your players guess if you were lying, since nothing like that had entered my mind at the time of my prior post - interesting though the topic is.</p><p></p><p>I understand the whole process of play that involves never hiding the facts from the players but instead assuming that the players will get the facts, and making the whole challenge not uncovering secrets but rather figuring out how to act on them. GUMSHOE and Trail of Cthulhu for example are games that write that process of play into the rules as an assumption of play. And I know where that is coming from because I know how a game can stagnant if you aren't careful when it so happens that the players can't get the facts. But I'm a pretty hard core simulationist, and my experience of real life is that we don't always have the facts to act on and we are often mistaken in our facts and beliefs, and I don't want to forgo that in my play and there are other techniques you can use to jump start the action when you have a plot stall.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7497966, member: 4937"] I'm not sure that I insulted you, and certainly didn't do so on purpose, but if you feel insulted I apologize. You are correct that I made assumptions about your process of play that may not be true, and I know how annoying it is to be misunderstood. It's a particular peeve of mine, so I apologize for any misreading of your statement. Ok, so the way knowledge skills are written in 5e is forcing some degree of incoherence on your procedures of play because you don't think they work according to the pattern the other skills are designed with, namely that the other skills assume active, goal oriented, tangible activity? Is that a fairer summation of the situation in your opinion? Because, I agree that that is true, though in my case that wouldn't bother me. I certainly do most of that with Int based 3e skills and would consider that valid things to be doing with even 3e skills, with the exception of not feeling the need to allow non-clerics to hallow ground because I'm ok with my game world having a lot of clerics but that's more of a setting decision than a process of play. I don't however have any problem reconciling "I remember stuff" because as far as I'm concerned all fortune rolls are just resolving a doubtful proposition, and "I might already know something about this before..." is a both a plausible (not 0% chance) but doubtful proposition (not 100% chance). The rest for me is just details needed only to make the fortune check and its resolution model more closely the thing being contested. I have on one hand no problem demanding the PC phrase things in an active use (approach and goal) when the intention of the proposition or contest demands it, or clarifying a vague proposition with a more active and specific wording, or forcing him to give a proposition rather than just asking if he can make a check, and I also have no problem with the proposition, "I might already know something about this because I'm educated..." For me, unity of mechanics is not really even an important goal, and indeed is something that I tend to think is self-defeating. For me, what is important about mechanics is that they model something, and since in the real world different things are well, different, that the mechanics that model them be different is desirable. Well, first of all, you responded to me; I didn't respond to you. In the post you were quoting, I had responded to the OP's concerns by way of MarkB, concerning the questions and concerns the OP had raised (and MarkB had re-emphasized) which were about detecting deception. At no point should you have thought that was a response to anything you had said, so your example regarding discovering the source of nervousness where ever the heck that occurs in this thread is not particularly germane either to my post that you quoted or to how I answered you, because I was going on the apparently erroneous assumption that what you said actually followed logically from what I had said and not in fact on some other conversation you were having that I was not a part of. However, misunderstandings aside, now that I'm more caught up, I am immensely curious as to how you actually would run that, even though it as far as I can tell irrelevant to how you would run the scenario the OP was talking about. I am still also quite willing to hear you explain your thoughts on a deception vs. insight contest, simply because I enjoy hearing about approaches that are wildly different than my own. My apparently erroneous assumption that you used 'success with consequence' techniques or 'partial success' techniques to invent complications for a scene not based on the stakes of the proposition was based on my faulty assumption that when you replied to me you were discussing the original poster's 'insight' versus 'deception' contest where the conventional interpretation is a hearer was attempting to decide whether the speaker was lying. I therefore assumed when you said that a consequence of failure might be that the speaker realizes you were suspicious, that you were saying that the speaker could detect that the hearer had failed to realize that they were lying. I have only just now in going back through the thread to try to figure out what you are talking about discovered the post on the thread where you explained that you'd adopted novel house rules with respect to how you apply and interpret the 'insight' skill, and while that's illuminating regarding where you are coming from, I certainly wasn't paying any attention to you or that at the time I originally posted. When I said that "If testing perception the only possible failure is of your perception." I was assuming that we were talking about "insight" as written as a passive perception skill, and not insight as a skill of active interrogation, innuendo, or rhetoric - approaches that would have me calling for some other skill than insight - because that is what the OP was talking about and what I was talking about. So that is the source of my confusion. Once again, you quoted me; I didn't quote you. I didn't enter into your conversation. I don't see how I'm supposed to know what thread of conversation you are continuing or why the burden of figuring out that you were talking about something quite tangential to what I was talking about falls on me. If I'm guilty of making assumptions, the chief of those is that your reply had something to do with what I was talking about, which it apparently it either did not or was only tangentially related to my comment. And frankly, I'm still confused because you've gotten very upset that I suggested that you impose failure on players arbitrarily, and yet you have also suggested as a consequence of asking a penetrating question that the result of failure be, "...those around now firmly believe the lie" Now, that is an example that would be classified by me as a consequence that doesn't logically follow on failure to ask a penetrating question and which is arbitrarily imposed, as surely those hearing the conversation are allowed to still keep their own judgements regarding the truthfulness of the target, despite your embarrassing ineptitude? After all, they have their own insight skills and draw their own conclusions. They might have detected a falsehood you failed to. They may think you are very rude and socially awkward or that you were very stupid to have challenged your target in public so ineptly on the basis of the evidence at hand (what you've just done), but the failure of your insight doesn't make people around you less insightful, I would think. For my part, I try to role-play NPCs and unless the NPC is a very good liar indeed, I try to roleplay someone who is lying or nervous or trying to avoid a subject according to the NPCs motivations, so that quite often the 'sense motive' check to determine if an NPC is lying is only of a help to players who themselves aren't very perceptive (or when I do a poor job acting). That 'sense motives' only confirm what the players already have good reason to suspect has become so prevalent in the campaign as to be a running gag. And as for me, I'd tend to actually run a piercing question by the PC as actual role-play with an actual piercing question (or two or three), and as a conversation and only after the conversation has run a while would skill checks to gain insights about the NPC's motives or truthfulness happen, or social skill checks to see if the NPC was swayed, intimidated or tricked into something be called for depending on the players agenda and the exact form the conversation had taken. In my case, "the approach" is an actual in character statement given in the form of dialogue, and players must do that before they earn a skill call. So, as you might expect from that process of play, since I'm always acting out NPCs, players try to guess whether I'm lying all the time. It was not intended as an insult, and further I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought you had your players guess if you were lying, since nothing like that had entered my mind at the time of my prior post - interesting though the topic is. I understand the whole process of play that involves never hiding the facts from the players but instead assuming that the players will get the facts, and making the whole challenge not uncovering secrets but rather figuring out how to act on them. GUMSHOE and Trail of Cthulhu for example are games that write that process of play into the rules as an assumption of play. And I know where that is coming from because I know how a game can stagnant if you aren't careful when it so happens that the players can't get the facts. But I'm a pretty hard core simulationist, and my experience of real life is that we don't always have the facts to act on and we are often mistaken in our facts and beliefs, and I don't want to forgo that in my play and there are other techniques you can use to jump start the action when you have a plot stall. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
An "Insightful" Question
Top