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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7499223" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>No problem. Thanks.</p></blockquote><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>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>[/quote]</p><p></p><p>Yes, the way the knowledge skills are designed and predominately used isn’t in line with the other skills. They usually don’t follow the ‘state a goal and approach’ format of action declaration. I dislike this. I’ve gravitated to not using rolls for recollection and instead just check proficiency. If yes, then I give the info, if no, they don’t know. This requires a change in how information works in game – ie, knowing things doesn’t solve problems, it provides avenues of approach. To me, knowing that trolls need fire to stop regeneration isn’t the critical part of that puzzle, it’s the application of fire. Granted, in 5e, that’s largely trivial with many classes, but that’s not a good reason for me to gate information.</p><p></p><p>If the information is really obscure, then proficiency doesn’t cut it – if you couldn’t have been taught it, you don’t know it, and no amount of luck will change this. This kind of information needs to be found through overcoming other challenges.</p><p> </p><p>In short, I’m changing how information flow works from the ‘traditional’ methods. This leaves knowledge skills still a bit at loose ends, because finding good applications of those skills with approach/goal action declarations is a bit harder that the other skills, still.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Mea culpa, this is true.</p><p></p><p>As for how I run the contest, the bottom line is that I will never tell the players that they believe an NPC – that’s the player’s choice. I don’t have a contest where PCs use a lie detector to be sure of their own interpretation of the issue. To that end, though, I overtell – if an NPC is lying, I give very strong clues as to this in the setup. To me, fooling the players isn’t the objective, it’s what the players do with the cues. I’ve found I can outright tell the players that an NPC is hiding things and not being fully honest and they’ll still go along with it. An insight check to get this same information doesn’t seem to really alter the game much, so I don’t bother.</p><p>What does interest me is if the players decide to contest the lying NPC and expose them. That contest is still insight vs deception, with a success meaning you’ve exposes the NPC’s lies and a failure meaning appropriate consequences given the scene. For instance, trying to get the King’s advisor to admit to plotting against the kingdom in court would have strong negative consequences for a failure (and, for clarity, I wouldn’t hinge this scene on one roll, either) whereas confronting a lying shopkeeper with no witnesses may just get you thrown out of the shop.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, even using the traditional approach, I strongly encourage having the speaker tell the listener is suspicious on a failure. If there’s no consequence to failure, I don’t believe in rolling. Since the roll is to tell if the speaker is lying because you don’t know, and a failure is no change in state, then don’t roll. Either say you can’t tell or add a consequence (clearly communicated prior to the roll).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>NPCs listening. Again, I don’t tell players what their PCs think. NPCs are manipulated by skill checks, players aren’t. This result was to say that other NPCs listening are convinced that the liar is telling the truth. After all, he just defended his statements against questioning, yeah?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, I absolutely provide information. I also act, and enjoy it, but I’ve gotten into the habit of providing a narration alongside it. For instance, in the case of the nervous NPC example above, I’d likely say:</p><p></p><p>“Okay, you’re talking to Bob the Smith and asking him if he’s heard anything about the murders. Bob looks very nervous, and is constantly looking over your shoulders and out the door as if checking to make sure no one else is there. ‘N-n-no. No. No I haven’t. I-I-I don’t meddle and I won’t see anything. Don’t see anything. I mean, didn’t see anything.’ He glances at the door again.”</p><p></p><p>I tell and act. Heck, I overtell.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I’m honestly no longer sure what simulationist means, in any real sense. I’m aware of the Forge meaning, which isn’t what most people are trying to say (like all Forge definitions), so I’m going with a default of ‘I like my worlds to seem real.’ I like that, as well. There’s a few approaches that can do this, though, and I’ve found I’m drifting more and more away from a hard-sim approach and still getting that lived-in and real world for my players. As a player, I’ve finding I’m more and more annoyed by gating knowledge behind rolls, as when a failure is rolled the game grinds to a halt. As a DM, I became equally tired of this – calling for a roll because a roll could be made and then having a failure derail things. So, I’ve stopped. I overtell, now, and it hasn’t ruined my game. My current mantra is that if you give the players perfect knowledge, they’ll still screw it up by the numbers. I don’t have to hide things to create drama, I just have to engage the players and work their motivations and the drama inevitably follows.</p><p></p><p>Now, I’m not in the ‘searching for a secret door creates one’ space for D&D (it works when I’m running Blades in the Dark, but that’s a very different system), but I push for approach and goal in action declarations and work everything off of that. If the player declares they’re going to get the advisor to admit their plot in the King’s court by questioning him, well, unless they’ve done the work to get evidence to back up their claims and unless they’ve done some work to gain favor in the court so they have standing to bring the charges, that’s just going to fail. But, if they do those things, the insight vs the advisor’s deception (probably with advantage for having favor and the advisor at disadvantage due to presented evidence) will reveal the subterfuge to the whole court on a success. On a failure, the PCs will be embarrassed and the court will not hear these charges again and the advisor will not be under suspicion – until something changes. But, this is a high risk/high reward setup, and I’m going to be fine running a failure where the players have to come up with a new plan. Now, if the evidence is slam-dunk, there’s no roll, the advisor is exposed and has to flee. The above assumes the outcome is uncertain (evidence is circumstantial, etc).</p><p> </p><p>Thanks for the discussion!</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7499223, member: 16814"] No problem. Thanks. [/quote] 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. [/quote] Yes, the way the knowledge skills are designed and predominately used isn’t in line with the other skills. They usually don’t follow the ‘state a goal and approach’ format of action declaration. I dislike this. I’ve gravitated to not using rolls for recollection and instead just check proficiency. If yes, then I give the info, if no, they don’t know. This requires a change in how information works in game – ie, knowing things doesn’t solve problems, it provides avenues of approach. To me, knowing that trolls need fire to stop regeneration isn’t the critical part of that puzzle, it’s the application of fire. Granted, in 5e, that’s largely trivial with many classes, but that’s not a good reason for me to gate information. If the information is really obscure, then proficiency doesn’t cut it – if you couldn’t have been taught it, you don’t know it, and no amount of luck will change this. This kind of information needs to be found through overcoming other challenges. In short, I’m changing how information flow works from the ‘traditional’ methods. This leaves knowledge skills still a bit at loose ends, because finding good applications of those skills with approach/goal action declarations is a bit harder that the other skills, still. Mea culpa, this is true. As for how I run the contest, the bottom line is that I will never tell the players that they believe an NPC – that’s the player’s choice. I don’t have a contest where PCs use a lie detector to be sure of their own interpretation of the issue. To that end, though, I overtell – if an NPC is lying, I give very strong clues as to this in the setup. To me, fooling the players isn’t the objective, it’s what the players do with the cues. I’ve found I can outright tell the players that an NPC is hiding things and not being fully honest and they’ll still go along with it. An insight check to get this same information doesn’t seem to really alter the game much, so I don’t bother. What does interest me is if the players decide to contest the lying NPC and expose them. That contest is still insight vs deception, with a success meaning you’ve exposes the NPC’s lies and a failure meaning appropriate consequences given the scene. For instance, trying to get the King’s advisor to admit to plotting against the kingdom in court would have strong negative consequences for a failure (and, for clarity, I wouldn’t hinge this scene on one roll, either) whereas confronting a lying shopkeeper with no witnesses may just get you thrown out of the shop. Well, even using the traditional approach, I strongly encourage having the speaker tell the listener is suspicious on a failure. If there’s no consequence to failure, I don’t believe in rolling. Since the roll is to tell if the speaker is lying because you don’t know, and a failure is no change in state, then don’t roll. Either say you can’t tell or add a consequence (clearly communicated prior to the roll). NPCs listening. Again, I don’t tell players what their PCs think. NPCs are manipulated by skill checks, players aren’t. This result was to say that other NPCs listening are convinced that the liar is telling the truth. After all, he just defended his statements against questioning, yeah? Yes, I absolutely provide information. I also act, and enjoy it, but I’ve gotten into the habit of providing a narration alongside it. For instance, in the case of the nervous NPC example above, I’d likely say: “Okay, you’re talking to Bob the Smith and asking him if he’s heard anything about the murders. Bob looks very nervous, and is constantly looking over your shoulders and out the door as if checking to make sure no one else is there. ‘N-n-no. No. No I haven’t. I-I-I don’t meddle and I won’t see anything. Don’t see anything. I mean, didn’t see anything.’ He glances at the door again.” I tell and act. Heck, I overtell. I’m honestly no longer sure what simulationist means, in any real sense. I’m aware of the Forge meaning, which isn’t what most people are trying to say (like all Forge definitions), so I’m going with a default of ‘I like my worlds to seem real.’ I like that, as well. There’s a few approaches that can do this, though, and I’ve found I’m drifting more and more away from a hard-sim approach and still getting that lived-in and real world for my players. As a player, I’ve finding I’m more and more annoyed by gating knowledge behind rolls, as when a failure is rolled the game grinds to a halt. As a DM, I became equally tired of this – calling for a roll because a roll could be made and then having a failure derail things. So, I’ve stopped. I overtell, now, and it hasn’t ruined my game. My current mantra is that if you give the players perfect knowledge, they’ll still screw it up by the numbers. I don’t have to hide things to create drama, I just have to engage the players and work their motivations and the drama inevitably follows. Now, I’m not in the ‘searching for a secret door creates one’ space for D&D (it works when I’m running Blades in the Dark, but that’s a very different system), but I push for approach and goal in action declarations and work everything off of that. If the player declares they’re going to get the advisor to admit their plot in the King’s court by questioning him, well, unless they’ve done the work to get evidence to back up their claims and unless they’ve done some work to gain favor in the court so they have standing to bring the charges, that’s just going to fail. But, if they do those things, the insight vs the advisor’s deception (probably with advantage for having favor and the advisor at disadvantage due to presented evidence) will reveal the subterfuge to the whole court on a success. On a failure, the PCs will be embarrassed and the court will not hear these charges again and the advisor will not be under suspicion – until something changes. But, this is a high risk/high reward setup, and I’m going to be fine running a failure where the players have to come up with a new plan. Now, if the evidence is slam-dunk, there’s no roll, the advisor is exposed and has to flee. The above assumes the outcome is uncertain (evidence is circumstantial, etc). Thanks for the discussion! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
An "Insightful" Question
Top