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="Hussar" data-source="post: 7596630" data-attributes="member: 22779"><p>The point I was making though is that the designers were intending the game to be played by people with no gaming experience. That's how the game is written to me. Since I'm not that, the advice doesn't really appeal as much.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>To me, this experience would be far too structured and rely far to heavily on the DM being at the front and center of the game. Simply ignoring this bit of the game in favor of trusting that my players know what they're doing instead of having me have to judge every declaration means that we have a better experience. </p><p></p><p>5e is written from the point of view that it has to be played by 15 year olds who've never role played before. So, it gives a very structured approach - goal and method as you call it - which will work very well at nearly any table. There's nothing wrong with doing it this way. It certainly works. And, yes, it certainly would clear up misunderstandings if followed faithfully.</p><p></p><p>OTOH, it assumes that the group needs this level of structure and that narrative power over the game rests very squarely on the DM's shoulders. That the players have their area of control in the game and the DM has everything else. LIke I said, I have no problems with players declaring stuff to be true. In the earlier example of climbing the wall and using boxes, it would not bother me in the slightest for the player to declare that he climbed the wall because there were boxes among the bric a brac in the last room and that he stacked them up to climb over the wall. IOW, the boxes were never described prior to the player rolling a success. </p><p></p><p>Doesn't happen much, but, I have no problem with it. 5e does not grant much authorial control to the players by the rules. I prefer the players to have more authorial control in the game. I LOVE it when the players declare stuff to be true that I hadn't added in. Lots of "Yes , and" sort of improv stuff. Would not be something that would work in a group of new players as well, and would not work with the goal and method approach either since it's the success of a check that allows the player to declare things in the game.</p><p></p><p>I guess that is another central idea - for you, a check is called for when the players haven't found a way to do something without needing a check. For me, a check allows the players to author elements in the game that weren't there beforehand.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7596630, member: 22779"] The point I was making though is that the designers were intending the game to be played by people with no gaming experience. That's how the game is written to me. Since I'm not that, the advice doesn't really appeal as much. To me, this experience would be far too structured and rely far to heavily on the DM being at the front and center of the game. Simply ignoring this bit of the game in favor of trusting that my players know what they're doing instead of having me have to judge every declaration means that we have a better experience. 5e is written from the point of view that it has to be played by 15 year olds who've never role played before. So, it gives a very structured approach - goal and method as you call it - which will work very well at nearly any table. There's nothing wrong with doing it this way. It certainly works. And, yes, it certainly would clear up misunderstandings if followed faithfully. OTOH, it assumes that the group needs this level of structure and that narrative power over the game rests very squarely on the DM's shoulders. That the players have their area of control in the game and the DM has everything else. LIke I said, I have no problems with players declaring stuff to be true. In the earlier example of climbing the wall and using boxes, it would not bother me in the slightest for the player to declare that he climbed the wall because there were boxes among the bric a brac in the last room and that he stacked them up to climb over the wall. IOW, the boxes were never described prior to the player rolling a success. Doesn't happen much, but, I have no problem with it. 5e does not grant much authorial control to the players by the rules. I prefer the players to have more authorial control in the game. I LOVE it when the players declare stuff to be true that I hadn't added in. Lots of "Yes , and" sort of improv stuff. Would not be something that would work in a group of new players as well, and would not work with the goal and method approach either since it's the success of a check that allows the player to declare things in the game. I guess that is another central idea - for you, a check is called for when the players haven't found a way to do something without needing a check. For me, a check allows the players to author elements in the game that weren't there beforehand. [/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