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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7588934" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>This is why people are saying you’re mischaracterizing the method. You’re making it sound like if you give any description at all, you can “bypass the check.” When the reality is, a check is called for when the described action would logically have a possibility of success, a possibility of failure, and a consequence for failure. This means checks will commonly be called for in dramatic situations, and rarely be called for otherwise.</p><p></p><p></p><p>“I inspect the door” isn’t any better than “I roll Investigation and get a 15” at all, because neither communicates what the player wants to achieve or what the character is doing to try to bring that goal about. In both cases, it can probably be inferred that the player wants to find out if the door is trapped or otherwise hazardous, but it cannot easily be inferred what the character is doing in either case. Are they just looking with their eyes? Are they touching it with their hands? Are they prodding it with a 10-foot poll? I could make a guess, but that’s not my roll as DM.</p><p></p><p>Now, I don’t need a detailed description. “I inspect the door <em>by looking at it</em>” is sufficient. “I inspect the door <em>with my lens of trueseeing</em> is sufficient. “I inspect the door <em>by jiggling the handle</em> is sufficient.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Here your confusion is coming from the fact that you are discussing this matter with different people, who all have slightly different ways of handling social interactions. At Iserith’s table, they (he?) will give you a clue if the NPC is lying to tip you off that the NPC might not be honest, and they are 100% fine with the fact that the players will notice he pattern (Iserith is on record as giving absolutely zero <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> about players making use of out of character knowledge). At my table, I occasionally make rolls behind the screen while you are interacting with NPCs, and will sometimes give you additional details about the NPC’s behavior or demeanor after making such a roll (these rolls are checks the NPCs are making against your passive Insight, which may be to deceive, intimidate, persuade, or any number of other things). At Ovinomancer’s or Elfcrusher’s tables, it might play out differently. </p><p></p><p></p><p>So, personally, I don’t think either of these statements give me enough information to adjudicate the action. From “I try to intimidate him,” I gather that the player wants to get the NPC to do something, and that they think their proficiency in the Intimidation skill will be relevant. But it doesn’t tell me what the character is doing. Saying “my eyes glow red” has the opposite problem - I know exactly what the character is doing*. But I don’t know what they hope to accomplish by doing it. From the context of your example, I think it’s fairly safe to assume that they want to intimidate an NPC, presumably to get them to do something. So, if that was also clear from the context of the game, I might be able to adjudicate that action.</p><p></p><p>The common thread here is that I (and others who use the “middle path”) need exactly two things to adjudicate an action: what the player wants to do, and how the characters tries to do it. Different DMs have different standards for how much detail they expect in the how, but most of us in this conversation don’t need or expect a great deal of detail. We’re generally pretty comfortable inferring a goal (Iserith less so than many of us), but everyone has a line. Fortunately it’s generally a pretty simple matter to ask the player for clarification. “Ok, so you’re casting Thaumaturgy to make your eyes glow red, hoping to frighten him out of asking you any more questions about ehat’ In the back of your wagon?” etc.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, from my perspective, I have been asked to explain my DMing style more times that I can count. I’ve gone into exhaustive detail about how I would handle a staggering number of absurdly specific situations. Through it all I have endeavored to always extend the questioner the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are acting in good faith and asking earnest questions. And for my patience, all I get is hundreds of pages of whatabouts, accuasations of pixel-bitching, and claims that “I get it, it’s just not my style” from the same people who claim to just be trying to understand my perspective. Why is the subject so controversial? You got me. Seems like a whole lot of people are really invested in trying to understand my play style and really struggle to understand it.</p><p></p><p>*well, kind of. Not 100% sure how they’re making their eyes glow red. Are they casting Thaumaturgy?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7588934, member: 6779196"] This is why people are saying you’re mischaracterizing the method. You’re making it sound like if you give any description at all, you can “bypass the check.” When the reality is, a check is called for when the described action would logically have a possibility of success, a possibility of failure, and a consequence for failure. This means checks will commonly be called for in dramatic situations, and rarely be called for otherwise. “I inspect the door” isn’t any better than “I roll Investigation and get a 15” at all, because neither communicates what the player wants to achieve or what the character is doing to try to bring that goal about. In both cases, it can probably be inferred that the player wants to find out if the door is trapped or otherwise hazardous, but it cannot easily be inferred what the character is doing in either case. Are they just looking with their eyes? Are they touching it with their hands? Are they prodding it with a 10-foot poll? I could make a guess, but that’s not my roll as DM. Now, I don’t need a detailed description. “I inspect the door [i]by looking at it[/i]” is sufficient. “I inspect the door [i]with my lens of trueseeing[/i] is sufficient. “I inspect the door [i]by jiggling the handle[/i] is sufficient. Here your confusion is coming from the fact that you are discussing this matter with different people, who all have slightly different ways of handling social interactions. At Iserith’s table, they (he?) will give you a clue if the NPC is lying to tip you off that the NPC might not be honest, and they are 100% fine with the fact that the players will notice he pattern (Iserith is on record as giving absolutely zero :):):):):) about players making use of out of character knowledge). At my table, I occasionally make rolls behind the screen while you are interacting with NPCs, and will sometimes give you additional details about the NPC’s behavior or demeanor after making such a roll (these rolls are checks the NPCs are making against your passive Insight, which may be to deceive, intimidate, persuade, or any number of other things). At Ovinomancer’s or Elfcrusher’s tables, it might play out differently. So, personally, I don’t think either of these statements give me enough information to adjudicate the action. From “I try to intimidate him,” I gather that the player wants to get the NPC to do something, and that they think their proficiency in the Intimidation skill will be relevant. But it doesn’t tell me what the character is doing. Saying “my eyes glow red” has the opposite problem - I know exactly what the character is doing*. But I don’t know what they hope to accomplish by doing it. From the context of your example, I think it’s fairly safe to assume that they want to intimidate an NPC, presumably to get them to do something. So, if that was also clear from the context of the game, I might be able to adjudicate that action. The common thread here is that I (and others who use the “middle path”) need exactly two things to adjudicate an action: what the player wants to do, and how the characters tries to do it. Different DMs have different standards for how much detail they expect in the how, but most of us in this conversation don’t need or expect a great deal of detail. We’re generally pretty comfortable inferring a goal (Iserith less so than many of us), but everyone has a line. Fortunately it’s generally a pretty simple matter to ask the player for clarification. “Ok, so you’re casting Thaumaturgy to make your eyes glow red, hoping to frighten him out of asking you any more questions about ehat’ In the back of your wagon?” etc. Well, from my perspective, I have been asked to explain my DMing style more times that I can count. I’ve gone into exhaustive detail about how I would handle a staggering number of absurdly specific situations. Through it all I have endeavored to always extend the questioner the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are acting in good faith and asking earnest questions. And for my patience, all I get is hundreds of pages of whatabouts, accuasations of pixel-bitching, and claims that “I get it, it’s just not my style” from the same people who claim to just be trying to understand my perspective. Why is the subject so controversial? You got me. Seems like a whole lot of people are really invested in trying to understand my play style and really struggle to understand it. *well, kind of. Not 100% sure how they’re making their eyes glow red. Are they casting Thaumaturgy? [/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