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

Oofta said:

-Players should always avoid a skill check if possible, which includes describing for example how they disarm a trap.

Click to expand...

Well, for one, it’s up to the player how they want to go about achieving their goals. Trying to avoid having to make skill checks where is a good strategy for success, but it’s certainly not a necessary part of the technique. Depending on what you mean by “describing how they disarm a trap,” this may be either something that is a necessary part of any action declaration under this technique (if by “describe,” you mean “state your action in terms of the character’s approach to the goal of disarming the trap,) or something that is never required, though certainly permitted (of by “describe” you mean go into great detail about the specifics of the character’s approach).

Oofta said:

-Traps and challenges should be broadcast so that they are obvious.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Traps and challenges should be telegraphed so that a player who is paying close attention might be able to anticipate it. That does not mean this telegraphing needs to make the presence of the trap or other challenge obvious.

Oofta said:

I'm not saying everyone runs things exactly like that, but that's the gist. Or did I miss something?

Click to expand...

There’s the bit about letting the players know the DC and potential consequences of an action if a roll is required to resolve an action, though that one isn’t a universally accepted part of the technique. As well, there is a tendency to think of actions that don’t require rolls as “automatic success” or “automatic failure” as opposed to merely not needing dice to resolve. There are several similar fundamental differences in the way the technique’s opponents and advocates view things like the role of the dice, and the nature of checks.

Oofta said:

And, in the US anyway served with artificially colored green horseradish that's been mislabeled 'wasabi'. What's your point?

Click to expand...

Just kinda found it ironic that you either misunderstood or misrepresented the fundamental components of sushi there.

Charlaquin said:

Well, for one, it’s up to the player how they want to go about achieving their goals. Trying to avoid having to make skill checks where is a good strategy for success, but it’s certainly not a necessary part of the technique. Depending on what you mean by “describing how they disarm a trap,” this may be either something that is a necessary part of any action declaration under this technique (if by “describe,” you mean “state your action in terms of the character’s approach to the goal of disarming the trap,) or something that is never required, though certainly permitted (of by “describe” you mean go into great detail about the specifics of the character’s approach).


Not at all. Traps and challenges should be telegraphed so that a player who is paying close attention might be able to anticipate it. That does not mean this telegraphing needs to make the presence of the trap or other challenge obvious.


There’s the bit about letting the players know the DC and potential consequences of an action if a roll is required to resolve an action, though that one isn’t a universally accepted part of the technique. As well, there is a tendency to think of actions that don’t require rolls as “automatic success” or “automatic failure” as opposed to merely not needing dice to resolve. There are several similar fundamental differences in the way the technique’s opponents and advocates view things like the role of the dice, and the nature of checks.


Just kinda found it ironic that you either misunderstood or misrepresented the fundamental components of sushi there.

Click to expand...

There's a fair amount of variation, and my quickly-typed bullet list isn't meant to be comprehensive.

But seriously. There are over a thousand posts. I think both sides have explained their sides or they aren't being consistent in what they say. I simply run my game differently and find it annoying that people keep telling me that I'm too stupid and ignorant understand the brilliance of their style because if I did I'd agree.

Charlaquin said:

I mean... One possible explanation of this phenomenon might be that people who do understand the way we run the game tend to like it. It's a bit like saying "Don't you think it's a little odd that everyone who says they like sushi seem to have tried authentically-made sushi?" No, I don't find that odd, honestly. Authentically made sushi is very good. Obviously it's not to everyone's tastes, and there certainly are some folks who have tried it and still didn't like it, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not the least bit surprising to me that most people who have tried it have liked it, and most people who are convinced they won't like it based on their experience with cheap sushi haven't tried it.

Click to expand...

Heh. Most folks have never eaten truly authentic sushi. Heck, even here in Japan, most folks haven't eaten really authentic sushi because it's unbelievably expensive. Did your sushi have avocado or tomato? That's from California. Did your sushi have chicken or anything other than fish? Yup, not traditional. Which soy sauce did you use? After all, there's a considerable regional difference in soy sauce and, if you're from outside of Japan, most likely the soy sauce you had was Chinese.

On and on and on.

I've met people who absolutely adore conveyer belt sushi (kainten sushi). But, by and large, that's made with frozen, low quality fish. It's the McDonalds of sushi. Yet its fantastically more popular than actual sushi. Trying to claim that authenticity makes it better doesn't really hold much water since, outside of a very small percentage of people, so few have actually eaten truly authentic sushi.

Some folks like sushi. Some folks like teriyaki chicken sushi. Some folks like avocado sushi. Does that mean that most folks are wrong for liking sushi that isn't authentic? Or only folks who eat traditional sushi are the ones who really know what sushi is? Or that folks are wrong for liking teriyaki chicken sushi but detesting ikura (fish eggs) sushi because they just don't "really understand" or apparently haven't really tried the "real" sushi?

It's unbelievably arrogant to continuously assume that everyone who tries a particular way of gaming will like it and that if someone doesn't like it, they obviously just haven't done it right. The onetruewayism stench in here is getting very, very thick. I play the way I do because I like it better this way. Not because it's better for anyone else or following the rules, or runs smoother (although I do think that it does run faster - less steps=runs faster) or anything else. I've tried it the way you and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and co. are talking about and it doesn't work for me. It's slower, and forces the DM into a central position that I DO NOT WANT TO BE IN since the DM now has to constantly ask for rolls rather than just letting the players drive the game.

I find it rather astonishing that you interpret this debate as us preaching a superior “onetruewayism”.

From my point of view this entire discussion has been a few of us defending our approach from (intentional?) mischaracterization and denigration “Mother May I”, “pixelbitching”, “talkie talkie” etc.

Y'know, I have to apologize for the "talkie talkie" thing. I thought it was funny and cute, totally not meant as a shot or anything like that. I see that it has very much taken on a life of its own, and that's totally my bad. Sorry about that.

When I say, talky talky or talky bits, I'm simply meaning those parts of the game that revolve around the social pillar. As opposed to the hacky bits or looky bits.

Yeah, humour is always tough.

But, honestly [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], I've never seen this as you folks needing to defend anything. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is 100% right in saying that this is what the 5e books expect. It is right there in black and white. I can't really argue with that.

My point has always been that anyone, like me or [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], saying that we have a way that works better for us is immediately dogpiled on as coming from dysfunctional tables or not understanding other approaches or whatever.

Hussar said:

Heh. Most folks have never eaten truly authentic sushi. Heck, even here in Japan, most folks haven't eaten really authentic sushi because it's unbelievably expensive. Did your sushi have avocado or tomato? That's from California. Did your sushi have chicken or anything other than fish? Yup, not traditional. Which soy sauce did you use? After all, there's a considerable regional difference in soy sauce and, if you're from outside of Japan, most likely the soy sauce you had was Chinese.

On and on and on.

I've met people who absolutely adore conveyer belt sushi (kainten sushi). But, by and large, that's made with frozen, low quality fish. It's the McDonalds of sushi. Yet its fantastically more popular than actual sushi. Trying to claim that authenticity makes it better doesn't really hold much water since, outside of a very small percentage of people, so few have actually eaten truly authentic sushi.

Click to expand...

I think you've stretched the metaphor well beyond its breaking point here.

Hussar said:

Some folks like sushi. Some folks like teriyaki chicken sushi. Some folks like avocado sushi. Does that mean that most folks are wrong for liking sushi that isn't authentic? Or only folks who eat traditional sushi are the ones who really know what sushi is? Or that folks are wrong for liking teriyaki chicken sushi but detesting ikura (fish eggs) sushi because they just don't "really understand" or apparently haven't really tried the "real" sushi?

Click to expand...

Nah, man, people are free to enjoy what they enjoy.

Hussar said:

It's unbelievably arrogant to continuously assume that everyone who tries a particular way of gaming will like it and that if someone doesn't like it, they obviously just haven't done it right. The onetruewayism stench in here is getting very, very thick.

Click to expand...

I agree, but no one here has said that if you don't like it, you must not have done it right.

Hussar said:

I play the way I do because I like it better this way. Not because it's better for anyone else or following the rules, or runs smoother (although I do think that it does run faster - less steps=runs faster) or anything else. I've tried it the way you and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and co. are talking about and it doesn't work for me. It's slower, and forces the DM into a central position that I DO NOT WANT TO BE IN since the DM now has to constantly ask for rolls rather than just letting the players drive the game.

Click to expand...

And that's totally fine. Nothing wrong with that.

Oofta said:

There's a fair amount of variation, and my quickly-typed bullet list isn't meant to be comprehensive.

But seriously. There are over a thousand posts. I think both sides have explained their sides or they aren't being consistent in what they say. I simply run my game differently and find it annoying that people keep telling me that I'm too stupid and ignorant understand the brilliance of their style because if I did I'd agree.

Click to expand...

And I simply find it annoying that people keep telling me that I'm telling them they're too stupid and ignorant to understand the brilliance of my style because if they did they'd agree when I have never said that and do not believe it's true.

Hussar said:

Y'know, I have to apologize for the "talkie talkie" thing. I thought it was funny and cute, totally not meant as a shot or anything like that. I see that it has very much taken on a life of its own, and that's totally my bad. Sorry about that.

When I say, talky talky or talky bits, I'm simply meaning those parts of the game that revolve around the social pillar. As opposed to the hacky bits or looky bits.

Yeah, humour is always tough.

But, honestly [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], I've never seen this as you folks needing to defend anything. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is 100% right in saying that this is what the 5e books expect. It is right there in black and white. I can't really argue with that.

My point has always been that anyone, like me or [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], saying that we have a way that works better for us is immediately dogpiled on as coming from dysfunctional tables or not understanding other approaches or whatever.

Click to expand...

I’d like to give XP for this, but the final paragraph is too much. You guys were rebutted because you went after goal/approach method complaining of pixel-bitching and talky-talky and how much you hated it when you tried it 20+ years ago. If you’d instead just said, that’s cool but I prefer handling it this way... I don’t think things would have gone so off the rails (so to speak.) So no, I don’t think you don’t get to say that we dogpiled on you. You thoroughly disrespected our preferred method, and now you’re saying it was us that started it? Talk about gaslighting!

Why do I keep reading this thread??!

robus said:

I’d like to give XP for this, but the final paragraph is too much. You guys were rebutted because you went after goal/approach method complaining of pixel-bitching and talky-talky and how much you hated it when you tried it 20+ years ago. If you’d instead just said, that’s cool but I prefer handling it this way... I don’t think things would have gone so off the rails (so to speak.) So no, I don’t think you don’t get to say that we dogpiled on you. You thoroughly disrespected our preferred method, and now you’re saying it was us that started it? Talk about gaslighting!

Why do I keep reading this thread??!

Click to expand...

I wish I could give this post more than one XP.

robus said:

I’d like to give XP for this, but the final paragraph is too much. You guys were rebutted because you went after goal/approach method complaining of pixel-bitching and talky-talky and how much you hated it when you tried it 20+ years ago. If you’d instead just said, that’s cool but I prefer handling it this way... I don’t think things would have gone so off the rails (so to speak.) So no, I don’t think you don’t get to say that we dogpiled on you. You thoroughly disrespected our preferred method, and now you’re saying it was us that started it? Talk about gaslighting!

Why do I keep reading this thread??!

Click to expand...

I do think that people are reading what they want to read. Myself included. Go back to the early posts. While I cannot speak for anyone else, I never "went after" anything. I was pretty clear that I was only speaking for how I played. I even went so far as to invite folks to call my way house ruling if it helped.

IOW, while I might have gotten sucked down into some argument, I certainly started off by saying, "That's cool but I prefer to handle it this way".