G
Guest 6801328
Guest
The problem here is that
1. 5e characters are already clowns when it comes to their specializations, let alone things they are not proficient at. Having good stats and an easy DC, you already fail 20% of the time. Now you're saying that an additional ~20% of their successes will be failures, only worse, because they now don't know they failed. At this point I'd just be giving up on skills as a player.
Once again...I'm suggesting this only be used on a small sub-set of skill tests. Namely, those tests in which players are counting on intuition or interpretation, where they want to know if their character "knows" something, but they really mean "believes" something. See the few examples I put into the OP.
So, no it wouldn't be an additional ~20%, it would be some additional percent of a rather small percentage.
2. Somehow characters who are poor at skills get less bad information.
Well, yeah. Those who are less likely to trust their judgment at all are also less likely to have bad judgments.
Apparently some of the worst judges of lying are cops who think they're really good at it. Go figure.
but honestly I think that the hardest part of any system like this is coming up with incorrect but believable information to hand out to each player in the first place.
Agreed, which is why I designed a system that is purely stochastic, in which fluff is just fluff. It does not depend on the DM's ability to improvise or give convincing evidence or anything (other than keeping a straight face).