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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7588848" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>There's some interesting stuff in this thread, that I'm still catching up on.</p><p></p><p>To me, this seems highly contextual. If the construct is simply a device for introducing a certain proposition into the fiction as something for the PCs to entertain (so the functional equivalent of eg finding a diary entry, or a carving) then the idea that there is nothing for the PC to discern seems plausible. Depending on context, I might expect an Insight check to be one way of working out that the construct is just reciting pre-established words.</p><p></p><p>But if the construct is itself an element in a social challenge, and the issue of its truth-telling <em>matters</em> to the resolution of that challenge, then I personally find a GM-fiat <em>no</em> a little railroad-y. (But at some tables perhaps constrcuts can't participate in social challenges, and are really just like Magic Mouth spells?)</p><p></p><p>This doesn't seem right. If the player doesn't declare any action for his/her PC that would suggest ascertaining the truthfulness (or otherwise) of the NPC, then how can the player infer that the NPC was telling the truth from the fact that no check was called for?</p><p></p><p>OK, but (a) don't they have to declare some action to trigger the skill check?</p><p></p><p>I have trouble following this - how does an Insight cjeck maintain mystery and doubt? Only if you don't tell the players whether or not the check succeeds - but in that case, what is the check adding to the game? I mean, the player can be uncertain if no check is made.</p><p></p><p>In my game, if there shopkeeper is telling the truth then I want this to become clear so that play moves on to something more interesting.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>These posts make it seem like the function of the checks is to "skip the boring bits". Although, as per the discussion of Insight checks maintaining mystery, it's not clear exactly how this will work if players aren't told whether or not their checks succeed.</p><p></p><p>This reads like, or at least fairly similarly to, "say 'yes' or roll the dice". That's a methodology that used to be extremely controversial on these boards.</p><p></p><p>It's also my preferred way to deal with "boring bits", or bits where nothing significant is at stake. Let's cut to something everyone's interested in!</p><p></p><p>My own preference in action resolution - which goes with "say 'yes' or roll the dice" - is that on a success it's the player's narration that becomes part of the shared fiction, and on a failure it's the GM's narration of the consequences that becomes part of the shared fiction.</p><p></p><p>The overall idea is that (1) we establish something that both GM and player are invested in; (2) the check to find out what happens is framed and made; (3) on a success it goes as the player wants, on a failure as the GM thinks will step up the pressure.</p><p></p><p>In your example of player narration you have the player narrating the moss that his PC slipped on, but don't elaborate on what the consequences of failure are or who establishes those. If by "player narrating own failure" you're talking more about what form the immediate event of failing takes, rather than what flows from it, then I'd see that as a shared GM/player/table thing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7588848, member: 42582"] There's some interesting stuff in this thread, that I'm still catching up on. To me, this seems highly contextual. If the construct is simply a device for introducing a certain proposition into the fiction as something for the PCs to entertain (so the functional equivalent of eg finding a diary entry, or a carving) then the idea that there is nothing for the PC to discern seems plausible. Depending on context, I might expect an Insight check to be one way of working out that the construct is just reciting pre-established words. But if the construct is itself an element in a social challenge, and the issue of its truth-telling [I]matters[/I] to the resolution of that challenge, then I personally find a GM-fiat [I]no[/I] a little railroad-y. (But at some tables perhaps constrcuts can't participate in social challenges, and are really just like Magic Mouth spells?) This doesn't seem right. If the player doesn't declare any action for his/her PC that would suggest ascertaining the truthfulness (or otherwise) of the NPC, then how can the player infer that the NPC was telling the truth from the fact that no check was called for? OK, but (a) don't they have to declare some action to trigger the skill check? I have trouble following this - how does an Insight cjeck maintain mystery and doubt? Only if you don't tell the players whether or not the check succeeds - but in that case, what is the check adding to the game? I mean, the player can be uncertain if no check is made. In my game, if there shopkeeper is telling the truth then I want this to become clear so that play moves on to something more interesting. These posts make it seem like the function of the checks is to "skip the boring bits". Although, as per the discussion of Insight checks maintaining mystery, it's not clear exactly how this will work if players aren't told whether or not their checks succeed. This reads like, or at least fairly similarly to, "say 'yes' or roll the dice". That's a methodology that used to be extremely controversial on these boards. It's also my preferred way to deal with "boring bits", or bits where nothing significant is at stake. Let's cut to something everyone's interested in! My own preference in action resolution - which goes with "say 'yes' or roll the dice" - is that on a success it's the player's narration that becomes part of the shared fiction, and on a failure it's the GM's narration of the consequences that becomes part of the shared fiction. The overall idea is that (1) we establish something that both GM and player are invested in; (2) the check to find out what happens is framed and made; (3) on a success it goes as the player wants, on a failure as the GM thinks will step up the pressure. In your example of player narration you have the player narrating the moss that his PC slipped on, but don't elaborate on what the consequences of failure are or who establishes those. If by "player narrating own failure" you're talking more about what form the immediate event of failing takes, rather than what flows from it, then I'd see that as a shared GM/player/table thing. [/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