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
If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
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: 7583723" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Let me try an example. There's a door that has a contact poison on the handle. For whatever reason, the players are suspicious of the door and are checking for traps.</p><p></p><p>The two methods you're contrasting here are asking for a roll vs stating an approach and goal. Let's start with asking for a roll.</p><p></p><p>"I search for traps. I got a __."</p><p></p><p>Firstly, this method requires a fixed DC fir the trap. This is a somewhat arbitrary DC based more on the needed challenge rather than anything hapoening on the fiction. That's not bad or wrong, just hiw it is. Many (most) published adventures set DCs this way.</p><p></p><p>So, a the check result is compared to the DC. I'm pretty sure we'll all agree what happens on a success -- the poisoned handle is discovered! But, what happens on a failure? That's murky. Some tabkes will offer "you find nothing" and wait for further actions that may engage the trap. Others might deckare that the poison was touched, which sets up the "I didn't say I touched that!" argument. The failure options are either 'nothing' or assuming actions on the PC's behalf that are harmful. And, this is perfectly fine if the table agrees the GM has this authority over PC actions. Not my preference, but perfectly fine.</p><p></p><p>Now, the goal and approach method. This method modifies DCs based on declared actions, so already a difference, and also generates different outcomes based on deckared actions. It is, however, not pixel bitching except in a very degenerate form. Let's look at two example approaches:</p><p></p><p>1) "I carefully examine the door visually to see if there are any traps."</p><p></p><p>With this action, the GM will probably determine the outcome is uncertain. A DC will generate based on what the GM thinks is a good representation of noticing the contact poison by visual inspection. A roll is then called for. On a success, the result is<em> indistinguishable from above</em> -- the trap is discovered! On a failure, though, the range is limited. The result is "you don't notice anything." Touching the poisoned handle is not a possible outcome. This is difference.</p><p></p><p>2) "I check for traps by carefully and slowly opening it, feeling for catches or triggers."</p><p></p><p>This plays out a bit differently. The GM could determine this directly engages the trap without a roll and move there. I'd, personally, set the DC as above and call for a roll, but I go with the assumption PCs are competent. A success would notice the poison before grasping the handle, so same as above. A failure, though, does not involve the GM assuming action from the PC -- tge handle has been grasped.</p><p></p><p>So, then, goal and approach work the same as asking fior a roll in success conditions (usually, there are corner cases), but in failure conditions they usually operate differently -- one establishes failure conditions from the approach declared, the other leaves it up to the GM. Neither is inherently superior.</p><p></p><p>Now, to address the complaint you make about pixel bitching more directly. Yes, goal and approach in a degenerate form is pretty much pixel bitching. If you, as GM, are looking only for the magic approach phrasing, you're doing the bad. But, as in all things, comparing how you play, with your principles and guidelines robust and intact, to a degenerate form of another's play, you will always look good by comparison. </p><p></p><p>Goal and approach is used in a principled manner not to create the need for specific approaches, but to reduce the need for GM assumptions. Done in a pricipled manner, goal and approach is very lenient on approaches, as I show above in the example where there's still a roll for an approach that appears to go straight at the trap. The priciples here is "don't be a dick" and "assume PCs are competent." I use goal and approach because I want to give the player the authority to say what their PC does -- I don't want to assume or narrate PC actions, I want to narrate outcomes. This doesn't make my method superior to yours, it just makes it superior for my table. I believe yours works for your table just as awesomely.</p><p></p><p>Also, both of the approaches above were lifted straight from my last session. No contact poison traps, though.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7583723, member: 16814"] Let me try an example. There's a door that has a contact poison on the handle. For whatever reason, the players are suspicious of the door and are checking for traps. The two methods you're contrasting here are asking for a roll vs stating an approach and goal. Let's start with asking for a roll. "I search for traps. I got a __." Firstly, this method requires a fixed DC fir the trap. This is a somewhat arbitrary DC based more on the needed challenge rather than anything hapoening on the fiction. That's not bad or wrong, just hiw it is. Many (most) published adventures set DCs this way. So, a the check result is compared to the DC. I'm pretty sure we'll all agree what happens on a success -- the poisoned handle is discovered! But, what happens on a failure? That's murky. Some tabkes will offer "you find nothing" and wait for further actions that may engage the trap. Others might deckare that the poison was touched, which sets up the "I didn't say I touched that!" argument. The failure options are either 'nothing' or assuming actions on the PC's behalf that are harmful. And, this is perfectly fine if the table agrees the GM has this authority over PC actions. Not my preference, but perfectly fine. Now, the goal and approach method. This method modifies DCs based on declared actions, so already a difference, and also generates different outcomes based on deckared actions. It is, however, not pixel bitching except in a very degenerate form. Let's look at two example approaches: 1) "I carefully examine the door visually to see if there are any traps." With this action, the GM will probably determine the outcome is uncertain. A DC will generate based on what the GM thinks is a good representation of noticing the contact poison by visual inspection. A roll is then called for. On a success, the result is[i] indistinguishable from above[/i] -- the trap is discovered! On a failure, though, the range is limited. The result is "you don't notice anything." Touching the poisoned handle is not a possible outcome. This is difference. 2) "I check for traps by carefully and slowly opening it, feeling for catches or triggers." This plays out a bit differently. The GM could determine this directly engages the trap without a roll and move there. I'd, personally, set the DC as above and call for a roll, but I go with the assumption PCs are competent. A success would notice the poison before grasping the handle, so same as above. A failure, though, does not involve the GM assuming action from the PC -- tge handle has been grasped. So, then, goal and approach work the same as asking fior a roll in success conditions (usually, there are corner cases), but in failure conditions they usually operate differently -- one establishes failure conditions from the approach declared, the other leaves it up to the GM. Neither is inherently superior. Now, to address the complaint you make about pixel bitching more directly. Yes, goal and approach in a degenerate form is pretty much pixel bitching. If you, as GM, are looking only for the magic approach phrasing, you're doing the bad. But, as in all things, comparing how you play, with your principles and guidelines robust and intact, to a degenerate form of another's play, you will always look good by comparison. Goal and approach is used in a principled manner not to create the need for specific approaches, but to reduce the need for GM assumptions. Done in a pricipled manner, goal and approach is very lenient on approaches, as I show above in the example where there's still a roll for an approach that appears to go straight at the trap. The priciples here is "don't be a dick" and "assume PCs are competent." I use goal and approach because I want to give the player the authority to say what their PC does -- I don't want to assume or narrate PC actions, I want to narrate outcomes. This doesn't make my method superior to yours, it just makes it superior for my table. I believe yours works for your table just as awesomely. Also, both of the approaches above were lifted straight from my last session. No contact poison traps, though. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
Top