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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7597261" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Right, which is why I say a check isn't the worst possible outcome of an action. Technically a check isn't even an outcome of an action, it's the way we determine an outcome. But generally success without a check is preferable to having to make a check, because a check has a possibility of failure and a consequence for failure.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I can see why that would make checks a desirable thing in your game, if not only do they not always have consequences for failure, but they have a possibility of better outcomes than automatic success. This is not how I run the game, however.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure there is. The action. The player says what they want to do and how their character tries to do it. The DM uses their brain to try to predict the most likely outcome, and if they cannot do so with certainty, they call for a roll. This process is called resolving, or sometimes adjudicating, the action. So, I guess it would be more accurate to say that dice rolls are <em>a part of</em> the primary resolution mechanic, which is evaluating the goal and approach, relying on a weighted random number generator, in the form of a d20 roll with modifiers based on character statistics, to resolve any uncertainty that arises, and narrating the result based on this evaluation.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I am not assuming you haven't tried telling your players the consequences. I asked specifically to <em>avoid</em> falling into that assumption. The things I say would probably not give off the wrong impression so much if <em>you</em> stopped assuming I'm arguing in bad faith.</p><p></p><p></p><p>"Beter and more dramatic roleplaying" was <em>pemerton's</em> standard, not mine, which you disagreed would result from the method pemerton described. My question was if you have <em>tried</em> the method pemerton described and found that it did not lead to the result they said it would (specifically, better and more dramatic roleplaying), or have you found your own method to result in roleplaying that is dramatic enough and of sufficient quality that you don't believe it would be improved by the method pemerton described?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not going to pretend I don't think the way I do it is better. But I do acknowledge that different people have different tastes and different experiences. Rather than assume you must not have tried my way if you don't think it's better, I thought it would be more courteous to ask if you have tried it and found it lacking, or if you simply aren't interested in trying it because you are already perfectly happy with your own method.</p><p></p><p>Note that, even if the answer is the latter, I don't believe that you would necessarily find my method preferable to your own if you just tried it. I do think you would find that it works better than you seem to think it would, but I expect you would probably still prefer your way, and indeed, think it is better. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Addressing your point was never the intent of my inquiry. I just wanted to know if your disagreement was based on experience with the method in question or on theory.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, I disagree that not knowing the potential consequences of a failed skill check is necessarily more dramatic or interesting. On the contrary, I think it is less dramatic and interesting because it hides what's at stake. I've referenced this before in this thread, I don't remember if it was with you, but I think Alfred Hitchcock's essay on why information is essential for creating suspense is equally applicable to roleplaying games as it is to filmmaking. I think a lot of DMs just get too caught up in worrying about keeping information the characters "couldn't know" out of the players hands and end up convincing themselves that they are making the game more dramatic by keeping information from the players instead of less.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree, the player <em>should</em> realize those things. That's kind of my point. There is every possibility that the player <em>doesn't</em> realize those things, in which case you do them a disservice by not making <em>sure</em> they know it. On the other hand, if they do know, you don't do them any disservice by reiterating it. Same concept as a life preserve, better to be given a reminder of the consequences and not need it than need a reminder and not get one.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, but what harm is done by telling the player the chandelier will fall if they fail? Don't tell them, you risk a scenario where the player, who had been expecting the chandelier to remain up if he fell so his other party members could still try to use it to escape, protests "I wouldn't have jumped if I'd known it might have broken!" Tell them, and... What? You ruin the surprise when it falls? I think you might be overestimating the drama added by <em>not</em> telling the players things, and underestimating the drama added by telling them.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Ehh, I'm not really interested in arguing about what is or isn't a "gotcha." My point is "there's no way the character could know that!" is a poor reason not to tell the player something when it is well within your power as DM to set up the scenario in such a way that the character <em>could</em> know it. If you object to me using the term "gotcha" for that, fine, I won't use that term for it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7597261, member: 6779196"] Right, which is why I say a check isn't the worst possible outcome of an action. Technically a check isn't even an outcome of an action, it's the way we determine an outcome. But generally success without a check is preferable to having to make a check, because a check has a possibility of failure and a consequence for failure. I can see why that would make checks a desirable thing in your game, if not only do they not always have consequences for failure, but they have a possibility of better outcomes than automatic success. This is not how I run the game, however. Sure there is. The action. The player says what they want to do and how their character tries to do it. The DM uses their brain to try to predict the most likely outcome, and if they cannot do so with certainty, they call for a roll. This process is called resolving, or sometimes adjudicating, the action. So, I guess it would be more accurate to say that dice rolls are [I]a part of[/I] the primary resolution mechanic, which is evaluating the goal and approach, relying on a weighted random number generator, in the form of a d20 roll with modifiers based on character statistics, to resolve any uncertainty that arises, and narrating the result based on this evaluation. I am not assuming you haven't tried telling your players the consequences. I asked specifically to [I]avoid[/I] falling into that assumption. The things I say would probably not give off the wrong impression so much if [I]you[/I] stopped assuming I'm arguing in bad faith. "Beter and more dramatic roleplaying" was [I]pemerton's[/I] standard, not mine, which you disagreed would result from the method pemerton described. My question was if you have [I]tried[/I] the method pemerton described and found that it did not lead to the result they said it would (specifically, better and more dramatic roleplaying), or have you found your own method to result in roleplaying that is dramatic enough and of sufficient quality that you don't believe it would be improved by the method pemerton described? I'm not going to pretend I don't think the way I do it is better. But I do acknowledge that different people have different tastes and different experiences. Rather than assume you must not have tried my way if you don't think it's better, I thought it would be more courteous to ask if you have tried it and found it lacking, or if you simply aren't interested in trying it because you are already perfectly happy with your own method. Note that, even if the answer is the latter, I don't believe that you would necessarily find my method preferable to your own if you just tried it. I do think you would find that it works better than you seem to think it would, but I expect you would probably still prefer your way, and indeed, think it is better. Addressing your point was never the intent of my inquiry. I just wanted to know if your disagreement was based on experience with the method in question or on theory. Again, I disagree that not knowing the potential consequences of a failed skill check is necessarily more dramatic or interesting. On the contrary, I think it is less dramatic and interesting because it hides what's at stake. I've referenced this before in this thread, I don't remember if it was with you, but I think Alfred Hitchcock's essay on why information is essential for creating suspense is equally applicable to roleplaying games as it is to filmmaking. I think a lot of DMs just get too caught up in worrying about keeping information the characters "couldn't know" out of the players hands and end up convincing themselves that they are making the game more dramatic by keeping information from the players instead of less. I agree, the player [I]should[/I] realize those things. That's kind of my point. There is every possibility that the player [I]doesn't[/I] realize those things, in which case you do them a disservice by not making [I]sure[/I] they know it. On the other hand, if they do know, you don't do them any disservice by reiterating it. Same concept as a life preserve, better to be given a reminder of the consequences and not need it than need a reminder and not get one. Sure, but what harm is done by telling the player the chandelier will fall if they fail? Don't tell them, you risk a scenario where the player, who had been expecting the chandelier to remain up if he fell so his other party members could still try to use it to escape, protests "I wouldn't have jumped if I'd known it might have broken!" Tell them, and... What? You ruin the surprise when it falls? I think you might be overestimating the drama added by [I]not[/I] telling the players things, and underestimating the drama added by telling them. Ehh, I'm not really interested in arguing about what is or isn't a "gotcha." My point is "there's no way the character could know that!" is a poor reason not to tell the player something when it is well within your power as DM to set up the scenario in such a way that the character [I]could[/I] know it. If you object to me using the term "gotcha" for that, fine, I won't use that term for it. [/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