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="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7589357" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>May or may not have a chance of succeeding</p><p>May or may not have a chance of failing</p><p>May or may not have consequences</p><p></p><p>And you need all three? First, my pendantry side wants to point out that one and two are the exact same thing. If something has a chance at success, by definition it has a chance of failure. </p><p></p><p>So, let us look to consequences. This gets muddy. </p><p></p><p>See, the consequence of failing to know something is to not know it. Something might happen because you do not know something, but that is not a direct consequence of the failed roll, the consequence of the failed roll is not having access to the knowledge. </p><p></p><p>Now, this only applies if the knowledge is useful. Knowing why the Lady's heraldry contains a rose with five petals may or may not be useful, depending on the campaign. But, if it is useful, and a player asks to roll knowledge on that family's history. Well, they may or may not know the story, but the only consequence of failure is not having potentially useful information. </p><p></p><p>Is that lack of information enough of a consequence for you to call for a roll? Maybe, I can't say. But, is giving them useful information with no roll, just because a failed roll only means they don't know make sense either? </p><p></p><p></p><p>It isn't that I don't use this philosophy from time to time. If a group wants to break down a door, and there is no time limit or major consequence to them breaking down the door, then they will not fail at breaking down the door eventually. The roll does tell me how long it took though, and the players might not know there is no consequence to their roll, so we might roll and a low number just means they struggle through it, but eventually succeed. After all, there is no point in having them keep rolling until they succeed, but that doesn't mean that I need specific consequences in mind for every roll either. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think I'm curious about your approach as a player. Somehow, there seems to be a problem with how rolls are handled at some of our tables, and people keep insisting that they describe actions so fully that there is no chance of failure. </p><p></p><p>That somehow, given the scenario, a player can describe their actions in such detail that no roll is needed, because no failure is possible. And not in rare cases, such as wiping a poisoned handle and discovering a poison oil, but that it is more common for them to have scenarios that cannot possibly fail instead of ones that are uncertain. </p><p></p><p>How? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So my only flaw in my approach is assuming there will be more uncertainty than certainty? That, in a discussion about how to handle skills, I am assuming that the dice will be rolled and a skill used instead of assuming that the approach given to me will be so certain of victory that no roll is needed? </p><p></p><p>That isn't putting the cart before the horse, that is splitting hairs. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, agree to disagree. I've seen a lot of novels get so verbose in trying to describe things that it takes away from the narrative. The fact that the lady was frightened isn't important enough to spend more words on, how people react and the events that unfold are far more important and if you have every emotional reaction take 7-10 words it is likely to get bogged down. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, I have problems catching where things are as well. Takes me a few minutes of scrolling to find my last post and just go from there. </p><p></p><p>This particular thing was about Insighting written letters, if that jogs your memory. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not going to disagree exactly, but I'm also not their babysitter. Sometimes I don't feel like devoting 2 to 4 minutes slowly walking them through the exercise of coming up with a plan, especially since that invites other players to chime in with what they would do and end up just running those actions for that player. </p><p></p><p>It's never ideal, but I also don't have this strict line in the sand about "player responsibility" and "GM responsibility" that some of you seem to have, so it doesn't really bother me overly much, beyond wishing for better players. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ugh, I wish I could think of a really good example of this. </p><p></p><p>It mostly happens when I'm tired, or having an off day, so part of that is on me. And rarely any of the physical skills, those have clear actions behind them that I can picture. </p><p></p><p>Insight and Investigation stuff? Knowledge checks? It happens when I know the DM is hinting at something, something that should be obvious, but I'm just not seeing it or understanding the significance of it. And I can usually narrow it down to 2 or 3 skills, and I ask if I could roll one of the list to see if I can break past whatever it is I'm not getting. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Very few people I play under bother homebrewing monsters to the point that I'd be remiss in making assumptions. </p><p></p><p>But there are two things I'm seeing here. </p><p></p><p>1) How is asking to recall lore not a asking to roll a check? Sure, I, as a DM, have sometimes told people after asking that there is no need to roll, because it makes perfect sense they would know the thing, but it is the same question. I don't imagine most DM's would be much more or less likely to give you the information if you prettied up your question by asking "Does my character know what a Black Pudding is?" versus "Can I roll Arcana to see if my character knows what a Black Pudding is?" </p><p></p><p>You are talking about a portion of a percentage difference I think, and that isn't enough to raise a fuss over. </p><p></p><p>2) Assuming my character can know everything I know about a world and setting is a dangerous thing. I know A LOT more than most of the people who DM for me, and most of the other players. Usually, they don't mind me acting on my knowledge, but it is polite for me to ask them and get their permission. Even if it is only to assure them on some level that their plans weren't too simplistic, it was simply that I, as a player, know far too much about the game and how it works.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7589357, member: 6801228"] May or may not have a chance of succeeding May or may not have a chance of failing May or may not have consequences And you need all three? First, my pendantry side wants to point out that one and two are the exact same thing. If something has a chance at success, by definition it has a chance of failure. So, let us look to consequences. This gets muddy. See, the consequence of failing to know something is to not know it. Something might happen because you do not know something, but that is not a direct consequence of the failed roll, the consequence of the failed roll is not having access to the knowledge. Now, this only applies if the knowledge is useful. Knowing why the Lady's heraldry contains a rose with five petals may or may not be useful, depending on the campaign. But, if it is useful, and a player asks to roll knowledge on that family's history. Well, they may or may not know the story, but the only consequence of failure is not having potentially useful information. Is that lack of information enough of a consequence for you to call for a roll? Maybe, I can't say. But, is giving them useful information with no roll, just because a failed roll only means they don't know make sense either? It isn't that I don't use this philosophy from time to time. If a group wants to break down a door, and there is no time limit or major consequence to them breaking down the door, then they will not fail at breaking down the door eventually. The roll does tell me how long it took though, and the players might not know there is no consequence to their roll, so we might roll and a low number just means they struggle through it, but eventually succeed. After all, there is no point in having them keep rolling until they succeed, but that doesn't mean that I need specific consequences in mind for every roll either. I think I'm curious about your approach as a player. Somehow, there seems to be a problem with how rolls are handled at some of our tables, and people keep insisting that they describe actions so fully that there is no chance of failure. That somehow, given the scenario, a player can describe their actions in such detail that no roll is needed, because no failure is possible. And not in rare cases, such as wiping a poisoned handle and discovering a poison oil, but that it is more common for them to have scenarios that cannot possibly fail instead of ones that are uncertain. How? So my only flaw in my approach is assuming there will be more uncertainty than certainty? That, in a discussion about how to handle skills, I am assuming that the dice will be rolled and a skill used instead of assuming that the approach given to me will be so certain of victory that no roll is needed? That isn't putting the cart before the horse, that is splitting hairs. Yeah, agree to disagree. I've seen a lot of novels get so verbose in trying to describe things that it takes away from the narrative. The fact that the lady was frightened isn't important enough to spend more words on, how people react and the events that unfold are far more important and if you have every emotional reaction take 7-10 words it is likely to get bogged down. Yeah, I have problems catching where things are as well. Takes me a few minutes of scrolling to find my last post and just go from there. This particular thing was about Insighting written letters, if that jogs your memory. I'm not going to disagree exactly, but I'm also not their babysitter. Sometimes I don't feel like devoting 2 to 4 minutes slowly walking them through the exercise of coming up with a plan, especially since that invites other players to chime in with what they would do and end up just running those actions for that player. It's never ideal, but I also don't have this strict line in the sand about "player responsibility" and "GM responsibility" that some of you seem to have, so it doesn't really bother me overly much, beyond wishing for better players. Ugh, I wish I could think of a really good example of this. It mostly happens when I'm tired, or having an off day, so part of that is on me. And rarely any of the physical skills, those have clear actions behind them that I can picture. Insight and Investigation stuff? Knowledge checks? It happens when I know the DM is hinting at something, something that should be obvious, but I'm just not seeing it or understanding the significance of it. And I can usually narrow it down to 2 or 3 skills, and I ask if I could roll one of the list to see if I can break past whatever it is I'm not getting. Very few people I play under bother homebrewing monsters to the point that I'd be remiss in making assumptions. But there are two things I'm seeing here. 1) How is asking to recall lore not a asking to roll a check? Sure, I, as a DM, have sometimes told people after asking that there is no need to roll, because it makes perfect sense they would know the thing, but it is the same question. I don't imagine most DM's would be much more or less likely to give you the information if you prettied up your question by asking "Does my character know what a Black Pudding is?" versus "Can I roll Arcana to see if my character knows what a Black Pudding is?" You are talking about a portion of a percentage difference I think, and that isn't enough to raise a fuss over. 2) Assuming my character can know everything I know about a world and setting is a dangerous thing. I know A LOT more than most of the people who DM for me, and most of the other players. Usually, they don't mind me acting on my knowledge, but it is polite for me to ask them and get their permission. Even if it is only to assure them on some level that their plans weren't too simplistic, it was simply that I, as a player, know far too much about the game and how it works. [/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