If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?

iserith · Apr 19, 2019

Chaosmancer said:
"Good" and "Bad" are equally problematic in reference to what [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION] was saying.

In that context a "good" approach avoids rolling and gives the player a pass on doing what they want to do. A "bad" approach then means that a roll is necessary.

I think that is almost worse than "correct" since there is some inherent sarcasm in the idea of a correct approach that highlights what it was Mort was objecting to. Mainly, that describing a set of actions that the DM agrees with means you will not have to risk failure. Which leads to what some people refer to as "gaming the DM" where they can dump intelligence or charisma stats and still dominate the social and exploration parts of the game, because they know how to describe things to the DMs liking, while players who have those stats and abilities but can't or don't describe things to the DMs liking end up suffering because of it.

All that means is that the DM you imagine is a person who isn't living up to the standards the DMG sets forth - that the DM be an impartial yet involved referee who acts a mediator between the rules and the players. And who, by following the "middle path" is balancing the use of dice against deciding on success to "encourage players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world."

So yes, I suppose if you DM in a way that the game does not intend, things can go wrong. I am glad we agree on this point.

Hussar · Apr 19, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
So even though I keep repeatedly saying that the performance doesn't matter, and that it's the content of the idea (the "approach") that counts, not how well it was delivered, you simply don't believe me?

FWIW, you can't challenge the character. The character doesn't exist. You can only challenge the player. Part of resolving the challenge can use the numbers on the character sheet, but that still does not challenge the character.

Now, the player can do their best to pretend to be the character when addressing the challenge, and that's great, but I don't want to get into a game of arbitrating what is good and bad, or valid and invalid, roleplaying.

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] answered this quite well but, I thought I'd repeat.

The approach matters. The approach is defined by the player. The player can define an approach regardless of what the character he or she is playing. Thus, we are challenging the player.

I am not interested in that.

Perhaps a better way for me to phrase it is that everything the player does must be shaped by the character and the results of the die roll. So, no your approach doesn't really matter to me. The results matter. Because, as you say, you don't want to arbitrate good or bad. Therefore, I don't. Remove approach and now there is nothing to arbitrate.

Hussar · Apr 19, 2019

iserith said:
/snip

"I persuade the king, Persuasion X" is insufficient here because the DM cannot judge the goal and approach and decide if there is uncertainty, a meaningful consequence of failure, or set a DC. Further, the "lead up" would never be contradicted by the roll in the method described above since the roll determines the outcome - the king does or does not approve the request (or approves it at a cost or with a setback for the PCs).

Insufficient for you, perhaps. I have no such problem. Nor does it cause issues at my table.

iserith · Apr 19, 2019

Hussar said:
Insufficient for you, perhaps. I have no such problem. Nor does it cause issues at my table.

The "here" in "insufficient here" - which you just quoted - refers to the method of adjudication under discussion in the context of [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] 's post, not to how you are doing things.

Twice in as many days you have observed how you've overreacted to my posts, but you're still doing it so far as I can tell. Third time's a charm perhaps?

Hussar · Apr 19, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
I suspect some here will call this gaming the system or cheating or "challenging the player not the character" or find some other way to denigrate it. But I think it's freakin' brilliant.

LOL. So, disagreeing is now denigrating? Perhaps you might have an easier time having a discussion without trying to characterize the other side as being completely unreasonable? Just a thought.

See, to me, that's great. And, sure, I can see why that particular example works. But, that's the thing with examples, they tend to dovetail nicely into whatever point you're trying to make.

Because, to me, regardless of that character's bonds and traits, the fact that he has no Cha bonus and no training in persuasion generally means that every time he opens his mouth, he's sticking his foot in it. He is, in fact, terrible at persuading anyone to do anything. You want to be good at it? Then spend the resources to be good at it. Don't expect me, the DM to reward you because you found the right approach that minimizes or even removes the chance of failure.

Before you make that persuasion roll? Just like any other skill, your character hasn't done anything. He's standing there waiting to speak until that roll hits the table. Just like you haven't started climbing until you drop the check or you haven't started looking for tracks until that die hits the table.

It's a different way of doing it, yup. And I see that you folks really like your way. That's great. See, no denigration here. Just honest disagreement that what you are doing is going to work at my table.

Hussar · Apr 20, 2019

iserith said:
The "here" in "insufficient here" - which you just quoted - refers to the method of adjudication under discussion in the context of [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] 's post, not to how you are doing things.

Twice in as many days you have observed how you've overreacted to my posts, but you're still doing it so far as I can tell. Third time's a charm perhaps?

No, I got the context. And, I'm going to stand pat.

"I persuade the king, Persuasion 17" is a perfectly fine thing to say at my table. I have ZERO problem with it. In the context of the situation, it's going to be obvious what the player wants to accomplish - he wants the king to do something and that's going to come out in play. But, again, since I don't care about the approach and since I feel that nothing actually happens in the game until the dice hit the table, then stating approaches don't really matter to me.

And, frankly, goal is typically pretty obvious. If it's not, sure, I'll ask. Or, really, the statement would most like be, "I want the king to follow my plan, Persuasion 17" if it's not already really, really obvious.

Guest 6801328 · Apr 20, 2019

Hussar said:
LOL. So, disagreeing is now denigrating? Perhaps you might have an easier time having a discussion without trying to characterize the other side as being completely unreasonable? Just a thought.

See, to me, that's great. And, sure, I can see why that particular example works. But, that's the thing with examples, they tend to dovetail nicely into whatever point you're trying to make.

Because, to me, regardless of that character's bonds and traits, the fact that he has no Cha bonus and no training in persuasion generally means that every time he opens his mouth, he's sticking his foot in it. He is, in fact, terrible at persuading anyone to do anything. You want to be good at it? Then spend the resources to be good at it. Don't expect me, the DM to reward you because you found the right approach that minimizes or even removes the chance of failure.

Before you make that persuasion roll? Just like any other skill, your character hasn't done anything. He's standing there waiting to speak until that roll hits the table. Just like you haven't started climbing until you drop the check or you haven't started looking for tracks until that die hits the table.

It's a different way of doing it, yup. And I see that you folks really like your way. That's great. See, no denigration here. Just honest disagreement that what you are doing is going to work at my table.

So are you claiming that if I go back through 100+ pages of this thread, I will only find disagreement, not denigration?

Yardiff · Apr 20, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
So are you claiming that if I go back through 100+ pages of this thread, I will only find disagreement, not denigration?

If there was are you claiming it was only one sided?

Guest 6801328 · Apr 20, 2019

Yardiff said:
If there was are you claiming it was only one sided?

Hellz no. I punch back. I'll own that.

Here, I'll quote myself:

You seem to have this picture in your head of us/me only ever resolving things by players using their own mental faculties.

Then again, I have a picture in my head of your players only ever resolving things by rolling dice, without ever doing any thinking for themselves.

Probably both images are wrong.

Note the third paragraph. In other words, "I can interpret your playstyle in just as negative a light as you interpret mine. Maybe we should both knock it off?"

But maybe that wasn't obvious, because here's one response:

yet you cling to tossing out the straw man of us always rolling and even get to throw in an added USB that somehow that also brings in "never thinking".

But, yeah, I can play that game. And I sorta enjoy it. I don't think I start it...I try not to...but so many people come in and out of these threads that I might sometimes take a swing at the wrong person.

FWIW I really am trying to be more zen, like Bawylie.

pemerton · Apr 20, 2019

Chaosmancer said:
A quick note on this, it is generally my newest players who are turtling, lacking confidence and not wanting to mess up. After a few sessions, generally, they start coming out of their shells.

<snip>

I don't see the honor duel as necessarily a bad thing. The player is likely built for combat and in a situation like an honor duel at a negotiation, going Nova is a perfect strategy. Unless the Champion is many times more powerful than the player, turning it into a combat gives them a reliable way to get what they want.

I'm as averse to overly-pedantic debating as anyone, but this post leaves me a bit confused. Upthread you identified the honour duel as an example of making things worse, which would lead to turtling.

Now you're saying you agree with me that it won't. And you're saying you don't see turtling issues.

So I'm confused over what your views are, and what you're basing on experience and what is conjecture.

My view remains that (i) if you put things at stake and make it clear how those consequences will factor into adjudication, players will declare actions for their PCs, and (ii) this makes for better and more dramatic RPGing.

Always assuming, of course, that the players want to play the game. Of course the PCs might wish for a nice quiet life, but that's not something we're going to play out at the table!