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 coming! 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: 7593977" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Then why is it, when I opened this conversation, I was told, well actually you should do it this way. Since, all I do is let players tell me what they want to do and am prepared for things to become skill checks? </p><p></p><p>Why do you keep telling me that we do things differently, when in the end we do them the same way?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So you never play as a player? </p><p></p><p>That might explain a whole heck of a lot here, because I DM and play as a player. I switch between adjudicating the plan and making the plan depending on the day of the week. If you never play but only DM that might explain why we are having a hard time communicating. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>ALL CAPS!!!</p><p></p><p>Sorry, had to get that out of my system. </p><p></p><p>At some point in this rambling conversation it was brought up that players who would worry about failing a roll and making a situation worse would simply choose not to roll. They would remain neutral as a counter to the consequences of failure. </p><p></p><p>So, it was proposed, that there should not only be consequences for failure, but consequences for doing nothing. So, exactly what I said. Consequence for failing and consequence for doing nothing. </p><p></p><p>Now, since that seems to be something you have a hard time grasping, considering your RESPONSE, I'm guessing you missed out or forgot that side conversation. But, I'm trying to cover my bases in this discussion to not misrepresent the playstyle. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If this was just about your personal checklist, why have you felt the need to correct me so many times about the way I play? </p><p></p><p>And, I still don't see the connection between the things you do and ensuring success and failure come about because of the player's decisions instead of a die roll. Your process is just about when to roll the dice based off player decisions, so it has equal chances of dice rolls going bad. And bad dice rolls don't invalidate the decision, do they? And how does this work towards making sure the players are thinking in terms of their character's actions instead of their skills? </p><p></p><p>Especially if you don't share your checklist and from the outside there is no difference between our approaches? </p><p></p><p>Wait...by "guessing" are you just worried about DMs who say "Well, this is a locked door, they need to use the lockpicking skill" and ignore every other plan until the players decide to pick the locks? Did you think that was the style I was advocating at any point?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You know, breaking my statements into smaller chunks is making it harder to respond succinctly. I've been dealing with that, but this? Taking this where you have and giving such a sarcastic response does nothing to address anything and is just a jab. </p><p></p><p>You wanted to quote this with the rest of the section that followed, great, throw in your jab and then address my points. But, don't break it this far apart so that my only possible response is to be rude back. It encourages nothing but trouble.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think the shove example is the one that stands out the most out of this list, but frankly, I'm getting tired of the circle. </p><p></p><p>You want to divide the narrative action from the mechanical resolution. To the point where your advice to me as a player is to not even worry about how my action might resolved. At least, not until you've told me there will be a check and the DC and the consequences for failure. </p><p></p><p>What am I supposed to be gaining here? If I want to move really fast, I don't just say that and wait for the DM to tell me that I can take the Dash action, I know the Dash action is a thing and I consider both the story and the mechanics. I treat spells, combat actions, and skills mostly the same way. Combat gets reversed more often than not, but social and exploration are handled the same way. </p><p></p><p>And, I guess what I'm supposed to be gaining is an understanding of your personal checklist for resolution... woo? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure, but why would I be defending my style if you weren't commenting on how I was doing it wrong? And then, instead of saying "Hey, it's just the way I prefer to do things" you double down, telling me I don't understand it, that I'm making mistakes in my use of terms, that your method leads to more people making decisions as their characters instead of... on something else since I'm starting to question what exactly you are trying to avoid. </p><p></p><p>I've been digging into what you are saying, trying to figure it out, and it seems our difference is simply you have a strict checklist that you don't share with your players and just mentally work through? That's what this entire thing exploded from?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, if we want to get really pedantic to quote [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] "Rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a DC is the processes that constitutes the game rules term, "check."" </p><p></p><p>So, almost all spells are resolved through a check. Either an attack roll or a saving throw. </p><p></p><p>But while we can pedantically argue down the primrose path, I think another point here is more important. That bolded section... is that the only point to keeping them separated? Just for ease of comparing different styles, most of which will still follow "declaration before roll" no matter what may find its way between? (I think it is fair to say no one has been advocating rolling then declaring an action afterward)</p><p></p><p>In that case, awesome, I appreciate it existing for that. Why am I getting taken to task for saying there are some checks that don't require a roll (reliable talent, barbarian strength) and that the action and check are so closely linked that I don't see a point in dividing them at the table? </p><p></p><p>I was told I was wrong for equating actions and checks, that I'm misunderstanding that actions and checks are different, that I'm resolving skills incorrectly because I keep thinking of them in terms of checks instead of actions. </p><p></p><p>But the entire point of a harsh division... is to help people with different styles be more clear in their discussions. So... I wouldn't have been wrong about any of that. I wouldn't have been resolving actions incorrectly. There was no point in calling me out as being wrong. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'd say it is more inline with option (ii), but (iii) sprinkles in there. </p><p></p><p>I have had far too many players who are so scared of failing and making things worse for the party that instead they opt to do nothing. </p><p></p><p>So, when I see people saying that by adding more consequences for failing a roll than simply defaulting to the status quo, and that makes their players more eager to act, that goes against everything I have seen with new players. The more consequences there are, the more likely they are to withdraw. Now, I do have more experienced players who love diving into issues and getting bloodied up in the process, but I don't need to guarantee that every check has a direct consequences for that to happen. </p><p></p><p>Failing forward is great, I love that style. But that was not the style I was addressing. This style seems more like "checks shouldn't be rolled unless failure hurts" and that is why I said the fighter puts there foot in their mouth. Under that style, as I understand it, it cannot be that the fighter simply fails to persuade the Troll King. It must be that the fighter makes the situation worse by failing to persuade the Troll King. Losing him as an ally, turning him into an enemy, accidentally getting embroiled in an honor duel, something to make the situation worse than it was before the fighter took the check. </p><p></p><p>And players can easily shield non-social characters most of the time. The Troll King wants to adress the man in charge, well, why isn't the bard the one in charge? He's the best at giving rallying speeches and dealing with political intrigue. The Fighter is just his Captain of the Guard, good at hitting stuff and not dying. </p><p></p><p>But you know, I want anyone and everyone to be able to get in on that sort of scene, not just those good at it, which is why I object to a style that says every failure of the dice must make things worse. Sure, sometimes they make things worse, but it should not be a requirement of the check.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7593977, member: 6801228"] Then why is it, when I opened this conversation, I was told, well actually you should do it this way. Since, all I do is let players tell me what they want to do and am prepared for things to become skill checks? Why do you keep telling me that we do things differently, when in the end we do them the same way? So you never play as a player? That might explain a whole heck of a lot here, because I DM and play as a player. I switch between adjudicating the plan and making the plan depending on the day of the week. If you never play but only DM that might explain why we are having a hard time communicating. ALL CAPS!!! Sorry, had to get that out of my system. At some point in this rambling conversation it was brought up that players who would worry about failing a roll and making a situation worse would simply choose not to roll. They would remain neutral as a counter to the consequences of failure. So, it was proposed, that there should not only be consequences for failure, but consequences for doing nothing. So, exactly what I said. Consequence for failing and consequence for doing nothing. Now, since that seems to be something you have a hard time grasping, considering your RESPONSE, I'm guessing you missed out or forgot that side conversation. But, I'm trying to cover my bases in this discussion to not misrepresent the playstyle. If this was just about your personal checklist, why have you felt the need to correct me so many times about the way I play? And, I still don't see the connection between the things you do and ensuring success and failure come about because of the player's decisions instead of a die roll. Your process is just about when to roll the dice based off player decisions, so it has equal chances of dice rolls going bad. And bad dice rolls don't invalidate the decision, do they? And how does this work towards making sure the players are thinking in terms of their character's actions instead of their skills? Especially if you don't share your checklist and from the outside there is no difference between our approaches? Wait...by "guessing" are you just worried about DMs who say "Well, this is a locked door, they need to use the lockpicking skill" and ignore every other plan until the players decide to pick the locks? Did you think that was the style I was advocating at any point? You know, breaking my statements into smaller chunks is making it harder to respond succinctly. I've been dealing with that, but this? Taking this where you have and giving such a sarcastic response does nothing to address anything and is just a jab. You wanted to quote this with the rest of the section that followed, great, throw in your jab and then address my points. But, don't break it this far apart so that my only possible response is to be rude back. It encourages nothing but trouble. I think the shove example is the one that stands out the most out of this list, but frankly, I'm getting tired of the circle. You want to divide the narrative action from the mechanical resolution. To the point where your advice to me as a player is to not even worry about how my action might resolved. At least, not until you've told me there will be a check and the DC and the consequences for failure. What am I supposed to be gaining here? If I want to move really fast, I don't just say that and wait for the DM to tell me that I can take the Dash action, I know the Dash action is a thing and I consider both the story and the mechanics. I treat spells, combat actions, and skills mostly the same way. Combat gets reversed more often than not, but social and exploration are handled the same way. And, I guess what I'm supposed to be gaining is an understanding of your personal checklist for resolution... woo? I'm not sure, but why would I be defending my style if you weren't commenting on how I was doing it wrong? And then, instead of saying "Hey, it's just the way I prefer to do things" you double down, telling me I don't understand it, that I'm making mistakes in my use of terms, that your method leads to more people making decisions as their characters instead of... on something else since I'm starting to question what exactly you are trying to avoid. I've been digging into what you are saying, trying to figure it out, and it seems our difference is simply you have a strict checklist that you don't share with your players and just mentally work through? That's what this entire thing exploded from? Actually, if we want to get really pedantic to quote [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] "Rolling a d20, adding modifiers, and comparing to a DC is the processes that constitutes the game rules term, "check."" So, almost all spells are resolved through a check. Either an attack roll or a saving throw. But while we can pedantically argue down the primrose path, I think another point here is more important. That bolded section... is that the only point to keeping them separated? Just for ease of comparing different styles, most of which will still follow "declaration before roll" no matter what may find its way between? (I think it is fair to say no one has been advocating rolling then declaring an action afterward) In that case, awesome, I appreciate it existing for that. Why am I getting taken to task for saying there are some checks that don't require a roll (reliable talent, barbarian strength) and that the action and check are so closely linked that I don't see a point in dividing them at the table? I was told I was wrong for equating actions and checks, that I'm misunderstanding that actions and checks are different, that I'm resolving skills incorrectly because I keep thinking of them in terms of checks instead of actions. But the entire point of a harsh division... is to help people with different styles be more clear in their discussions. So... I wouldn't have been wrong about any of that. I wouldn't have been resolving actions incorrectly. There was no point in calling me out as being wrong. I'd say it is more inline with option (ii), but (iii) sprinkles in there. I have had far too many players who are so scared of failing and making things worse for the party that instead they opt to do nothing. So, when I see people saying that by adding more consequences for failing a roll than simply defaulting to the status quo, and that makes their players more eager to act, that goes against everything I have seen with new players. The more consequences there are, the more likely they are to withdraw. Now, I do have more experienced players who love diving into issues and getting bloodied up in the process, but I don't need to guarantee that every check has a direct consequences for that to happen. Failing forward is great, I love that style. But that was not the style I was addressing. This style seems more like "checks shouldn't be rolled unless failure hurts" and that is why I said the fighter puts there foot in their mouth. Under that style, as I understand it, it cannot be that the fighter simply fails to persuade the Troll King. It must be that the fighter makes the situation worse by failing to persuade the Troll King. Losing him as an ally, turning him into an enemy, accidentally getting embroiled in an honor duel, something to make the situation worse than it was before the fighter took the check. And players can easily shield non-social characters most of the time. The Troll King wants to adress the man in charge, well, why isn't the bard the one in charge? He's the best at giving rallying speeches and dealing with political intrigue. The Fighter is just his Captain of the Guard, good at hitting stuff and not dying. But you know, I want anyone and everyone to be able to get in on that sort of scene, not just those good at it, which is why I object to a style that says every failure of the dice must make things worse. Sure, sometimes they make things worse, but it should not be a requirement of the check. [/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