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: 7593058" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Ok, I see the confusion here. You said:</p><p></p><p></p><p>I said:</p><p></p><p></p><p>You assumed that the part of your quote I took issue with was "makes them look for better options." In fact, I took issue with the "punishing players" part, along with the fact that your quote implies that "looking for better options" and "relying on their best skills" are mutually exclusive things.</p><p></p><p></p><p>...Weird way to phrase that, but ok, I think I see what you mean.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Keep trying to claim? I corrected your misrepresentation of my stance one time.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have made no such claim. I claim that my way of doing things encourages players to look for ways of resolving actions that don't have a chance of failure or don't have a cost for the attempt or consequence for failure. In contrast to your assertion that my way of doing things punishes players and in so doing makes them rely on their best skills. I am not attacking your way of doing things, I am defending mine.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You keep suggesting that my way of doing things is somehow not "just asking the players to tell me what they want to do, and being prepared for things to become skill checks." This is not the case.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't have a plan. It is not my role as DM to come up with a plan for the player to escape. My role is to adjudicate the player's plan.</p><p></p><p></p><p>My system incentivizes players to think in terms of what their character is doing, in order to maximize their ability to avoid having to make checks. Again, if you just imagine your character existing in the world and describe what they do, most of the time what happens as a result will be pretty much what you expected to happen. If you have a pretty good idea about the most likely outcome of your character doing a thing, that's probably exactly what's going to happen. In the case that something bad might happen, you'll get fair warning about that. You're the one trying to force this "players need to come up with foolproof plans to succeed" narrative, not me.</p><p></p><p></p><p>All evidence to the contrary.</p><p></p><p></p><p>YOU KEEP SAYING THIS, AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT MEANS!!!</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have literally told you that I mean that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This conversation has come about because you are repeatedly (and seemingly deliberately) misinterpreting my position. Yes, we probably would call for rolls much of the same times. Yes, you probably do call for rolls more often than I do. The difference between our methods is that I have a more rigorous process that I personally follow in adjudicating actions - namely, I ask myself if the character's action has a reasonable chance of accomplishing the player's goal. If it doesn't, it fails. If it does, I ask myself if the character's action has a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the player's goal. If it doesn't it succeeds. If it does, I ask myself if there is a cost for attempting this action, or a consequence for failing. If it doesn't, it succeeds. If it does, I ask myself what Attribute this task would best be resolved with, and whether the task is easy, medium, hard, or very hard. Then I tell the player to make a check with the appropriate Attribute, at the appropriate difficulty, and let them know what will happen on a failure. I do these things primarily to insure that the characters successes and failures will largely be the result of the players' decisions, rather than the roll of the dice. Secondarily, I do these things to encourage players to think in terms of what their character is doing (rather than trying to guess what skill or skills I'll allow them to accomplish their goal with on a success), and to equip them with enough information to make informed decisions.</p><p></p><p>If your players think primarily in terms of what their characters are doing the way you run things, that's great. To be perfectly frank, I don't really care. You do whatever you want, it doesn't affect my game. In my experience, when I have allowed players to announce actions in terms of what skill they want to use instead of what their character is doing, it has not worked that way. I have had much more success running it the way I describe above. Your mileage may, and probably will, vary. And that's fine.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The three step process is something I do to help me resolve actions in what I feel is the best way I can. If you don't need or want to use such a process, great. Again, I don't really care. As for the division between actions and checks, they are two different things. They just are. That's how they're defined by the rules. I quoted the exact sections of the rules that define them, I don't know what more you want from me. Actions aren't checks, checks are a tool you use to figure out what happens as a result of actions. This is not some ideological thing, this is literally what the words mean in terms of 5e's rules.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a DC is the processes that constitutes the game rules term, "check." In some specific cases, certain abilities may make it possible to determine the results of a check without having to roll the d20.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because you thinking of the words "check" and "action" as essentially interchangeable seems to be getting in the way of you understanding my methods.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't know, is it really that hard for you to undrstand that words mean things?</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it is not. It is an action. It's a thing the character is doing. It may or may not require a check to resolve, to which Proficiency in the Investigation skill may or may not be applicable. Personally, I'd say Perception would be more appropriate than Investigation here, but that's neither here nor there.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And this way of thinking is a barrier to you understanding my method. Don't worry about what kind of check it is. Just say what you want to accomplish and how your character is going about it. Most of the time, what will happen is pretty much what you think will happen, no roll necessary. Sometimes, I might inform you of a potential consequence that action might have, and what you'd need to roll to avoid that consequence. If you don't want to take the risk, you don't have to.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Correct. You'll note that the action is the thing your character is doing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, this is the mechanical process used to resolve the Shove action.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Possibly. That's a DM judgment call, really.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it's an action, which may or may not require a Perception check to resolve.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sometimes. But many actions can be resolved without skill checks.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not at my table. The action-to-ability-check ratio is pretty steep at my table. Checks are made frequently, because my games focus on adventurous people in dangerous situations and naturally that will lead to a high frequency of actions with uncertain outcomes and dramatic consequences. But far more actions are declared that don't have uncertain outcomes or don't have dramatic consequences. When a check happens in my games, it's because things are getting tense.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not. Again, short of actually coming to my game and seeing how it plays out, you're just going to have to take my word for it. But trust me, that is the best way to be successful in my games.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Why does it matter if you're surprised? I'm telling you exactly what you need to roll, what the difficulty is, and what the consequences could be, and allowing you to back out if you don't want to go through with it. In what way are you disadvantaged by not having predicted that I'd make that call?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Alright. You're allowed not to like that. Personally, I do.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Good for you, dude. If that works for you, go nuts. It has no impact on me and my games.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have done no such thing. I don't care if you do things my way or not. I, personally, have found the most success running the game the way I do, which is why I do it. If it doesn't interest you, don't do it my way. Why would I care?</p><p></p><p></p><p>You have done nothing but pick apart my style in your quest to understand what you're doing differently than me. When in reality, it could not be simpler. You allow players to declare actions in terms of what skill they want to use, and you don't tell players the DC or possible consequences. I request that players declare actions in terms of goal and approach, and I do tell them the DC and possible consequences. Additionally, I only call for rolls under a particular set of circumstances (namely, a reasonable chance of success, a reasonable chance of failure, and a cost for the action or consequence for failure). That's it. It really isn't more complicated than that.</p><p></p><p></p><p>For me, it is the best way I've found. I can only speak to my own experience. If your way works for you, have fun with your way.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok. That's your call to make. Whether you are making it because of what you imagine your character would do or based on your mental cost/benefit analysis, that's none of my business. My job is to give you the information you need to make decisions. What decisions you make or why is up to you. </p><p></p><p></p><p>See, on this we disagree. I think your character can and should have a decent sense of their own capabilities. Just like you can look at a cliff and make a fairly accurate prediction about whether or not you'd be able to climb it and what would happen if you failed. Just like you, your character is a sapient entity with a concept of cause and effect, who can make predictions about the likely effects caused by their own actions, to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Me telling you the DC and consequences is an abstraction of that knowledge, and if you go through with it, the possibility of failure is an abstraction of the possibility of your character misjudging their capabilities, the difficulty of the task, or both. And we are telling the story together. Whatever decision you make, that's what makes sense in the story. That's your right as a player, you have full autonomy over your character's actions.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think you being risk averse is a bad thing. The point is to allow you to succeed and fail based more on your choices than on random chance. If your decision is to avoid risk, great! If your decision is to dive headfirst into risk, also great! But it should be an informed decision either way, otherwise we're just flailing about and asking the dice to tell us what happens, which is not my cup of tea.</p><p></p><p>Now, my way may not be your cup of tea either. By the sound of it, it's very much not. And that's perfectly ok. We don't have to like the same things, and if my style isn't for you, then all I can say is, I hope you have more fun with your own style than you would with mine.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7593058, member: 6779196"] Ok, I see the confusion here. You said: I said: You assumed that the part of your quote I took issue with was "makes them look for better options." In fact, I took issue with the "punishing players" part, along with the fact that your quote implies that "looking for better options" and "relying on their best skills" are mutually exclusive things. ...Weird way to phrase that, but ok, I think I see what you mean. Keep trying to claim? I corrected your misrepresentation of my stance one time. I have made no such claim. I claim that my way of doing things encourages players to look for ways of resolving actions that don't have a chance of failure or don't have a cost for the attempt or consequence for failure. In contrast to your assertion that my way of doing things punishes players and in so doing makes them rely on their best skills. I am not attacking your way of doing things, I am defending mine. You keep suggesting that my way of doing things is somehow not "just asking the players to tell me what they want to do, and being prepared for things to become skill checks." This is not the case. I don't have a plan. It is not my role as DM to come up with a plan for the player to escape. My role is to adjudicate the player's plan. My system incentivizes players to think in terms of what their character is doing, in order to maximize their ability to avoid having to make checks. Again, if you just imagine your character existing in the world and describe what they do, most of the time what happens as a result will be pretty much what you expected to happen. If you have a pretty good idea about the most likely outcome of your character doing a thing, that's probably exactly what's going to happen. In the case that something bad might happen, you'll get fair warning about that. You're the one trying to force this "players need to come up with foolproof plans to succeed" narrative, not me. All evidence to the contrary. YOU KEEP SAYING THIS, AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT MEANS!!! I have literally told you that I mean that. This conversation has come about because you are repeatedly (and seemingly deliberately) misinterpreting my position. Yes, we probably would call for rolls much of the same times. Yes, you probably do call for rolls more often than I do. The difference between our methods is that I have a more rigorous process that I personally follow in adjudicating actions - namely, I ask myself if the character's action has a reasonable chance of accomplishing the player's goal. If it doesn't, it fails. If it does, I ask myself if the character's action has a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the player's goal. If it doesn't it succeeds. If it does, I ask myself if there is a cost for attempting this action, or a consequence for failing. If it doesn't, it succeeds. If it does, I ask myself what Attribute this task would best be resolved with, and whether the task is easy, medium, hard, or very hard. Then I tell the player to make a check with the appropriate Attribute, at the appropriate difficulty, and let them know what will happen on a failure. I do these things primarily to insure that the characters successes and failures will largely be the result of the players' decisions, rather than the roll of the dice. Secondarily, I do these things to encourage players to think in terms of what their character is doing (rather than trying to guess what skill or skills I'll allow them to accomplish their goal with on a success), and to equip them with enough information to make informed decisions. If your players think primarily in terms of what their characters are doing the way you run things, that's great. To be perfectly frank, I don't really care. You do whatever you want, it doesn't affect my game. In my experience, when I have allowed players to announce actions in terms of what skill they want to use instead of what their character is doing, it has not worked that way. I have had much more success running it the way I describe above. Your mileage may, and probably will, vary. And that's fine. The three step process is something I do to help me resolve actions in what I feel is the best way I can. If you don't need or want to use such a process, great. Again, I don't really care. As for the division between actions and checks, they are two different things. They just are. That's how they're defined by the rules. I quoted the exact sections of the rules that define them, I don't know what more you want from me. Actions aren't checks, checks are a tool you use to figure out what happens as a result of actions. This is not some ideological thing, this is literally what the words mean in terms of 5e's rules. Rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a DC is the processes that constitutes the game rules term, "check." In some specific cases, certain abilities may make it possible to determine the results of a check without having to roll the d20. Because you thinking of the words "check" and "action" as essentially interchangeable seems to be getting in the way of you understanding my methods. I don't know, is it really that hard for you to undrstand that words mean things? No, it is not. It is an action. It's a thing the character is doing. It may or may not require a check to resolve, to which Proficiency in the Investigation skill may or may not be applicable. Personally, I'd say Perception would be more appropriate than Investigation here, but that's neither here nor there. And this way of thinking is a barrier to you understanding my method. Don't worry about what kind of check it is. Just say what you want to accomplish and how your character is going about it. Most of the time, what will happen is pretty much what you think will happen, no roll necessary. Sometimes, I might inform you of a potential consequence that action might have, and what you'd need to roll to avoid that consequence. If you don't want to take the risk, you don't have to. Correct. You'll note that the action is the thing your character is doing. No, this is the mechanical process used to resolve the Shove action. Possibly. That's a DM judgment call, really. No, it's an action, which may or may not require a Perception check to resolve. Sometimes. But many actions can be resolved without skill checks. Not at my table. The action-to-ability-check ratio is pretty steep at my table. Checks are made frequently, because my games focus on adventurous people in dangerous situations and naturally that will lead to a high frequency of actions with uncertain outcomes and dramatic consequences. But far more actions are declared that don't have uncertain outcomes or don't have dramatic consequences. When a check happens in my games, it's because things are getting tense. It's not. Again, short of actually coming to my game and seeing how it plays out, you're just going to have to take my word for it. But trust me, that is the best way to be successful in my games. Why does it matter if you're surprised? I'm telling you exactly what you need to roll, what the difficulty is, and what the consequences could be, and allowing you to back out if you don't want to go through with it. In what way are you disadvantaged by not having predicted that I'd make that call? Alright. You're allowed not to like that. Personally, I do. Good for you, dude. If that works for you, go nuts. It has no impact on me and my games. I have done no such thing. I don't care if you do things my way or not. I, personally, have found the most success running the game the way I do, which is why I do it. If it doesn't interest you, don't do it my way. Why would I care? You have done nothing but pick apart my style in your quest to understand what you're doing differently than me. When in reality, it could not be simpler. You allow players to declare actions in terms of what skill they want to use, and you don't tell players the DC or possible consequences. I request that players declare actions in terms of goal and approach, and I do tell them the DC and possible consequences. Additionally, I only call for rolls under a particular set of circumstances (namely, a reasonable chance of success, a reasonable chance of failure, and a cost for the action or consequence for failure). That's it. It really isn't more complicated than that. For me, it is the best way I've found. I can only speak to my own experience. If your way works for you, have fun with your way. Ok. That's your call to make. Whether you are making it because of what you imagine your character would do or based on your mental cost/benefit analysis, that's none of my business. My job is to give you the information you need to make decisions. What decisions you make or why is up to you. See, on this we disagree. I think your character can and should have a decent sense of their own capabilities. Just like you can look at a cliff and make a fairly accurate prediction about whether or not you'd be able to climb it and what would happen if you failed. Just like you, your character is a sapient entity with a concept of cause and effect, who can make predictions about the likely effects caused by their own actions, to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Me telling you the DC and consequences is an abstraction of that knowledge, and if you go through with it, the possibility of failure is an abstraction of the possibility of your character misjudging their capabilities, the difficulty of the task, or both. And we are telling the story together. Whatever decision you make, that's what makes sense in the story. That's your right as a player, you have full autonomy over your character's actions. I don't think you being risk averse is a bad thing. The point is to allow you to succeed and fail based more on your choices than on random chance. If your decision is to avoid risk, great! If your decision is to dive headfirst into risk, also great! But it should be an informed decision either way, otherwise we're just flailing about and asking the dice to tell us what happens, which is not my cup of tea. Now, my way may not be your cup of tea either. By the sound of it, it's very much not. And that's perfectly ok. We don't have to like the same things, and if my style isn't for you, then all I can say is, I hope you have more fun with your own style than you would with mine. [/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