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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7588827" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>I think you’re probably right. The key difference is that in one style the player says what skill they want to use and the DM describes what the character does based on the skill employed and the result of the roll. In the other, the player describes what the character does and the DM says what skill to use (if any) based on the description. I also think the dice get rolled less frequently in the latter case.</p><p></p><p>It’s not <em>forbidden</em> at my table. It’s just that, for me, saying “I use [INSERT SKILL] is not enough information to determine the player’s intent and the character’s approach, without making a lot of assumptions. Usually their goal is clear from context. When there’s a chest and the player says “I make a Perception check,” it’s pretty obvious that they want to find out if it’s trapped, or a mimic or something. But just knowing what the player wants to accomplish is not enough for me to adjudicate the action, without knowing what the character is doing to try to figure it out. I could make an assumption that they are giving it a thorough visual examination, but that is not my role as the DM. I’m not here to tell you what your character is doing, that’s up to you. I’m here to tell you what happens as a result of what you tell me your character is doing, and if I can’t figure that out easily. i’ll ask you to roll a die to help me decide what happens. That’s why my go-to response for actions posed this way is, “I’m hearing that you want to [ASSUMED GOAL], but what does your character do to try to accomplish that?”</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because skills still help tip the odds in your favor when the outcome of an action is uncertain and there is a risk associated with failure. It’s just that, instead of skill investment being the primary way you insure the best chance of success, they become your backup for when success is not already assured. You don’t invest in Charisma (Intimidation) because you need it to be able to be intimidating. You invest in it because you plan to play a character who frequently intimidated people, and you want to make sure that, when your attempt at being intimidating has a chance of causing you a setback if it fails, you have the best chance of success you can.</p><p></p><p>Now, you could argue that this does diminish the value of skill investment. Because a character who did not invest in Charisma (Intimidation) can still be intimidating. In my opinion, this is a feature not a bug. I don’t want skill investment to be a barrier for entry to certain tasks, I want them to be a bonus, something that you invest in because you want to be the guy the party calls on to do the thing when the stakes are high and you can’t afford to fail. Think of it like how 5e moved away from making bonuses from magic items an expected part of progression, to make them feel more meaningful. Instead of needing a +X magic weapon by level Y to have a chance of hitting CR Y monsters, that +X is always above and beyond what you need. This approach does the same for skills.</p><p></p><p>I’m not sure I understand this one.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It’s not a big deal necessarily. If that’s how you prefer to run the game, I have no interest in trying to stop you from doing so. I personally don’t like to do it that way, and if you are curious about my reasons why I feel that way, I would be happy to discuss them with you. But I do think it’s important to gram that discussion in the terms “This is why I prefer to run the game the way I do,” not “this is why I have a problem with you running the game the way you do.”</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7588827, member: 6779196"] I think you’re probably right. The key difference is that in one style the player says what skill they want to use and the DM describes what the character does based on the skill employed and the result of the roll. In the other, the player describes what the character does and the DM says what skill to use (if any) based on the description. I also think the dice get rolled less frequently in the latter case. It’s not [I]forbidden[/I] at my table. It’s just that, for me, saying “I use [INSERT SKILL] is not enough information to determine the player’s intent and the character’s approach, without making a lot of assumptions. Usually their goal is clear from context. When there’s a chest and the player says “I make a Perception check,” it’s pretty obvious that they want to find out if it’s trapped, or a mimic or something. But just knowing what the player wants to accomplish is not enough for me to adjudicate the action, without knowing what the character is doing to try to figure it out. I could make an assumption that they are giving it a thorough visual examination, but that is not my role as the DM. I’m not here to tell you what your character is doing, that’s up to you. I’m here to tell you what happens as a result of what you tell me your character is doing, and if I can’t figure that out easily. i’ll ask you to roll a die to help me decide what happens. That’s why my go-to response for actions posed this way is, “I’m hearing that you want to [ASSUMED GOAL], but what does your character do to try to accomplish that?” Because skills still help tip the odds in your favor when the outcome of an action is uncertain and there is a risk associated with failure. It’s just that, instead of skill investment being the primary way you insure the best chance of success, they become your backup for when success is not already assured. You don’t invest in Charisma (Intimidation) because you need it to be able to be intimidating. You invest in it because you plan to play a character who frequently intimidated people, and you want to make sure that, when your attempt at being intimidating has a chance of causing you a setback if it fails, you have the best chance of success you can. Now, you could argue that this does diminish the value of skill investment. Because a character who did not invest in Charisma (Intimidation) can still be intimidating. In my opinion, this is a feature not a bug. I don’t want skill investment to be a barrier for entry to certain tasks, I want them to be a bonus, something that you invest in because you want to be the guy the party calls on to do the thing when the stakes are high and you can’t afford to fail. Think of it like how 5e moved away from making bonuses from magic items an expected part of progression, to make them feel more meaningful. Instead of needing a +X magic weapon by level Y to have a chance of hitting CR Y monsters, that +X is always above and beyond what you need. This approach does the same for skills. I’m not sure I understand this one. It’s not a big deal necessarily. If that’s how you prefer to run the game, I have no interest in trying to stop you from doing so. I personally don’t like to do it that way, and if you are curious about my reasons why I feel that way, I would be happy to discuss them with you. But I do think it’s important to gram that discussion in the terms “This is why I prefer to run the game the way I do,” not “this is why I have a problem with you running the game the way you do.” [/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