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: 7594106" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>By all means, quote the post where I said “you should do it this way.” If you can point to it, I will cede that I misspoke and apologize. But this whole time I have done nothing but answer your questions about my DMing style and correct your misapprehensions about it. From my perspective, I am just being grilled relentlessly on my DMing style, while simultaneously being accused of attacking yours.</p><p></p><p>The one thing I did “attack,” if you want to call it that, was your suggestion of a “better” way to adjudicate the stupid poisoned handle scene. And my only point in doing so was to say “I don’t like it when the DM dictates what the PC does, especially when what they narrate contradicts the plauer’s description of their own action.” My approach to action adjudication avoids that. I don’t really care if you adopt my style or not.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Clearly we do do (heh) things differently. I only call for checks when the character’s approach has a reasonable chance of succeeding at achieving the player’s goal, a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the player’s goal, and a cost for the attempt or a consequence for failure, and if it has those things, I tell the player the DC and consequences so that they can make necessary preparations and/or decide not to go through with the action. You... Well, to be honest, I’m not sure what you do. This conversation has been almost entirely focused on what I do, which makes it extra strange to be accused of attacking your play style. I don’t even know what your play style is.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I do play as a player, but when I do, I don’t tend to adjudicate actions. You’re asking me what I would do if I was a player in my own game? I don’t know. If it was my game there’d be more context than “you’re locked in a cell and there’s a guard.” But I guess since the guard is the only feature of the environment I’ve been given any information about, I’d try to talk to him? Or maybe ask the DM for more details about my environment. I don’t know, this is a very strange exercise and I really don’t see the point of it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You’re good <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok, well I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I have only been responding to the parts of your posts that are addressed to me (because I am not really interested in the rest of the conversation, I’m just defending my position.) So, I don’t know who said that or what they were on about, but the idea that there “must be a consequence for inaction” does not sound at all reflective of my DMing style to me. Maybe you’re rephrasing something I would actually agree with in a way I can’t grokk, but on its surface, the asssertion that “there must be a consequence for inaction” sounds like straight-up moonspeak to me and certainly doesn’t sound like something that I would enforce in my games.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In your grilling me about my DMing style, you have proposed many example scenarios which are not reflective of my DMing style, and you have consistently re-framed examples I have given into a style not reflective of my own. That is what I have corrected. My process isn’t going to make sense to you as long as you continue to think of actions as requiring checks to resolve, except sometimes when the DM lets you automatically succeed. I’m not even a fan of the term “automatically succeed” because it gives the wrong idea from the get-go. It implies a baseline state where actions are resolved by checks, in which automac success and failure is possible in exceptional circumstances. This is not the case in my style. In my style, checks are not the way players interact with the world, they are tools the DM can utilize to adjudicate actions that do not already have clear outcomes. As long as you are thinking in terms of action=check, you are going to struggle to understand my style, because you are looking at it through an alien frame of reference.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In my approach, the primary way of accomplishing things is by describing what your character does to try to accomplish them. Your ability to imagine the scenario, imagine your character in it, and make predictions about the likely outcomes of your character’s actions is your most powerful tool for achieving your goals. If you can imagine your character doing a thing, and imagine what would probably happen next as a result of him or her doing that thing, chances are that’s exactly what will happen if you tell me that your character does that thing. Sometimes, I might inform you that there’s a chance that there’s a chance something bad might happen as a result of your character doing this thing (which you may have already predicted). When I do so, I will say what bad thing might happen, and what the chances are of that bad thing happening, and give you the opportunity to change your mind. Though, again, if you’ve been imagining the world, you probably already had a pretty good idea about the possibility of the bad thing happening, so chances are good that you’re ok with that possibility, unless what I’m saying might happen is much worse and/or much more likely than you had anticipated, in which case I’m glad you got fair warning about that.</p><p></p><p>I think it’s pretty self-explanatory how this encourages players to think in terms of the character and the world. As for how it makes decisions the primary driver of success over RNG... Well, for one thing, there are a lot fewer dice rolls being made. I’ve seen plenty of D&D games where the DM calls for rolls in situations I never would have (or even just “because we haven’t had a roll in a while - god, I hate that. Not saying you are guilty of this, just saying it’s a thing I’ve experienced). This introduces many more opportunities for failure due to low rolls then there are in my games. I’m not a fan of that. It sucks to fail because of bad luck, so if something seems like it’d probably work, it just does in my games. Or, if it seems like it might work or might not, but nothing dramatic or interesting happens if it doesn’t work... then it just works. Then when something seems like it might work or might not, and also seems like it not working is an interesting possibility, then I tell you what’s at stake and what the chances of success are, and allow you to decide if you still want to go through with it or not. So if you fail, it’s not just because of a bad roll. I mean, that is part of it, but ultimately you’re the one who decided to take that chance, with full knowledge of the risk involved. It doesn’t feel like a bad roll screwed you out of succeeding, it feels like you took a calculated risk that didn’t pay off. </p><p></p><p></p><p>That is one of many pitfalls that my DMing style circumvents. Whether you fall into this particular pitfall or not, I don’t know. Like I said, I know very little about how you actually DM, apart from the fact that you do allow players to initiate checks, you don’t require them to state explicitly what their character is doing, and you do call for checks where failure doesn’t change the status quo. Oh, and that you will occasionally narrate the PC’s action, which drives me nuts as a player when DMs do it to me. But other than that, I don’t really know. What I do know is, when I used to do these things as a DM, it did not lead to an experience I or my players found very satisfying. When I changed my approach, my games became much more enjoyable for everyone involved.</p><p></p><p></p><p>If I’m jabbing it’s in retaliation for being jabbed. Sorry, that’s a bad habit of mine, but your “is it really that hard for you to understand?” comment really rubbed me the wrong way. And for the record, it was in its own line apart from the preceding paragraph, I didn’t isolate it any more than it was already isolated.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Some actions, notably the ones listed in the “Actions in Combat” section of the PHB, have very specific, codified effects. When you take this specific action, here’s exactly what happens. Skills do not function this way. Skills have effectively unlimited possible applications and by their nature must be adjudicated on a case by case basis. Additionally, skills are not actions in and of themselves. Skills allow you to add your proficiency bonus to a check, when the action being resolved by the check falls under that skill’s purview.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Man, if you don’t care about the process I use to resolve actions, why are you grilling me so hard on it?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I guess?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7594106, member: 6779196"] By all means, quote the post where I said “you should do it this way.” If you can point to it, I will cede that I misspoke and apologize. But this whole time I have done nothing but answer your questions about my DMing style and correct your misapprehensions about it. From my perspective, I am just being grilled relentlessly on my DMing style, while simultaneously being accused of attacking yours. The one thing I did “attack,” if you want to call it that, was your suggestion of a “better” way to adjudicate the stupid poisoned handle scene. And my only point in doing so was to say “I don’t like it when the DM dictates what the PC does, especially when what they narrate contradicts the plauer’s description of their own action.” My approach to action adjudication avoids that. I don’t really care if you adopt my style or not. Clearly we do do (heh) things differently. I only call for checks when the character’s approach has a reasonable chance of succeeding at achieving the player’s goal, a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the player’s goal, and a cost for the attempt or a consequence for failure, and if it has those things, I tell the player the DC and consequences so that they can make necessary preparations and/or decide not to go through with the action. You... Well, to be honest, I’m not sure what you do. This conversation has been almost entirely focused on what I do, which makes it extra strange to be accused of attacking your play style. I don’t even know what your play style is. I do play as a player, but when I do, I don’t tend to adjudicate actions. You’re asking me what I would do if I was a player in my own game? I don’t know. If it was my game there’d be more context than “you’re locked in a cell and there’s a guard.” But I guess since the guard is the only feature of the environment I’ve been given any information about, I’d try to talk to him? Or maybe ask the DM for more details about my environment. I don’t know, this is a very strange exercise and I really don’t see the point of it. You’re good ;) Ok, well I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I have only been responding to the parts of your posts that are addressed to me (because I am not really interested in the rest of the conversation, I’m just defending my position.) So, I don’t know who said that or what they were on about, but the idea that there “must be a consequence for inaction” does not sound at all reflective of my DMing style to me. Maybe you’re rephrasing something I would actually agree with in a way I can’t grokk, but on its surface, the asssertion that “there must be a consequence for inaction” sounds like straight-up moonspeak to me and certainly doesn’t sound like something that I would enforce in my games. In your grilling me about my DMing style, you have proposed many example scenarios which are not reflective of my DMing style, and you have consistently re-framed examples I have given into a style not reflective of my own. That is what I have corrected. My process isn’t going to make sense to you as long as you continue to think of actions as requiring checks to resolve, except sometimes when the DM lets you automatically succeed. I’m not even a fan of the term “automatically succeed” because it gives the wrong idea from the get-go. It implies a baseline state where actions are resolved by checks, in which automac success and failure is possible in exceptional circumstances. This is not the case in my style. In my style, checks are not the way players interact with the world, they are tools the DM can utilize to adjudicate actions that do not already have clear outcomes. As long as you are thinking in terms of action=check, you are going to struggle to understand my style, because you are looking at it through an alien frame of reference. In my approach, the primary way of accomplishing things is by describing what your character does to try to accomplish them. Your ability to imagine the scenario, imagine your character in it, and make predictions about the likely outcomes of your character’s actions is your most powerful tool for achieving your goals. If you can imagine your character doing a thing, and imagine what would probably happen next as a result of him or her doing that thing, chances are that’s exactly what will happen if you tell me that your character does that thing. Sometimes, I might inform you that there’s a chance that there’s a chance something bad might happen as a result of your character doing this thing (which you may have already predicted). When I do so, I will say what bad thing might happen, and what the chances are of that bad thing happening, and give you the opportunity to change your mind. Though, again, if you’ve been imagining the world, you probably already had a pretty good idea about the possibility of the bad thing happening, so chances are good that you’re ok with that possibility, unless what I’m saying might happen is much worse and/or much more likely than you had anticipated, in which case I’m glad you got fair warning about that. I think it’s pretty self-explanatory how this encourages players to think in terms of the character and the world. As for how it makes decisions the primary driver of success over RNG... Well, for one thing, there are a lot fewer dice rolls being made. I’ve seen plenty of D&D games where the DM calls for rolls in situations I never would have (or even just “because we haven’t had a roll in a while - god, I hate that. Not saying you are guilty of this, just saying it’s a thing I’ve experienced). This introduces many more opportunities for failure due to low rolls then there are in my games. I’m not a fan of that. It sucks to fail because of bad luck, so if something seems like it’d probably work, it just does in my games. Or, if it seems like it might work or might not, but nothing dramatic or interesting happens if it doesn’t work... then it just works. Then when something seems like it might work or might not, and also seems like it not working is an interesting possibility, then I tell you what’s at stake and what the chances of success are, and allow you to decide if you still want to go through with it or not. So if you fail, it’s not just because of a bad roll. I mean, that is part of it, but ultimately you’re the one who decided to take that chance, with full knowledge of the risk involved. It doesn’t feel like a bad roll screwed you out of succeeding, it feels like you took a calculated risk that didn’t pay off. That is one of many pitfalls that my DMing style circumvents. Whether you fall into this particular pitfall or not, I don’t know. Like I said, I know very little about how you actually DM, apart from the fact that you do allow players to initiate checks, you don’t require them to state explicitly what their character is doing, and you do call for checks where failure doesn’t change the status quo. Oh, and that you will occasionally narrate the PC’s action, which drives me nuts as a player when DMs do it to me. But other than that, I don’t really know. What I do know is, when I used to do these things as a DM, it did not lead to an experience I or my players found very satisfying. When I changed my approach, my games became much more enjoyable for everyone involved. If I’m jabbing it’s in retaliation for being jabbed. Sorry, that’s a bad habit of mine, but your “is it really that hard for you to understand?” comment really rubbed me the wrong way. And for the record, it was in its own line apart from the preceding paragraph, I didn’t isolate it any more than it was already isolated. Some actions, notably the ones listed in the “Actions in Combat” section of the PHB, have very specific, codified effects. When you take this specific action, here’s exactly what happens. Skills do not function this way. Skills have effectively unlimited possible applications and by their nature must be adjudicated on a case by case basis. Additionally, skills are not actions in and of themselves. Skills allow you to add your proficiency bonus to a check, when the action being resolved by the check falls under that skill’s purview. Man, if you don’t care about the process I use to resolve actions, why are you grilling me so hard on it? I guess? [/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