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

5ekyu

Hero
Well 5e by default relies a lot on skill checks rather than description of interaction with the dungeon environment.
5e combat is a lot slower than pre-3e combat, which limited the amount of exploration per session.
5e does not really encourage 'logistical' play with OD&D features such as a bunch of retainers (who provide social roleplaying opportunities as well as resources), side-based initiative (allowing group-based battle tactics), need to consult with Sages (rather than knowledge skill checks), etc. It's a lot closer to 3e & 4e with more of a Superhero Team ethos.
Most of my 5e players pretty well refused to map properly, which then limited their knowledge of available exploration routes.
5e does not do attrition as well as pre-3e.

These were not major problems mind you; nothing like trying to run dungeon exploration campaign in 4e!
"Most of my 5e players pretty well refused to map properly, which then limited their knowledge of available exploration routes. "

Hmm.. one of the things I liked about 5e was the explicit move of mapping to an "in-character" action in the movement and travel, along with navigation. That way it's much more a character-side discovery, govern able by in-character aptitudes and observation, not a mostly or completely player-driven feature.

I can certainly get why newer 5e players would not think the onus of mapping was on the players (or "properly mapping") since it is a defined character action within the rules.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


S'mon

Legend
I can certainly get why newer 5e players would not think the onus of mapping was on the players (or "properly mapping") since it is a defined character action within the rules.

I doubt more than 5% of my players ever noticed that section.
Anyway I did let them retrace steps, but I'm not going to hand out literal maps to them.
 

pemerton

Legend
In my games, "search checks" are not handled by 5e "standard" or even by others more word-driven approaches.

If a PC searches a room, I assign a DC based on the situation and circumstances and if they get a success they find stuff that is somehow interesting, adding to the fiction. This approach works a lot like say 5e foraging (success equals you did find stuff) as opposed to its "searching" (success equals that only if there is something hidden or hard to find you find it, but if nothing was noted there, nothing is found. )

Obviously, as in my insight and halfling example, failure can always be some success with setbacks) finding stuff but breaking some of it.

As a result of this approach I have a lot of "interesting stuff of interest" that gets into play solely as consequence of successful checks - not as result of "GM puts this here before we start session - room 2a - in the left desk drawer,"
If I've understood you right, I would put this broadly into the DW way of doing things.

Two examples from my own play (neither 5e, but maybe illustrative nevertheless):

(1) In my Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy game, the PCs were teleported by a Crypt Thing deep into a dungeon (mechanically, I spent 2d12 from the Doom Pool to end the scene involvingthe Crypt Thing). I saddled each PC with a d12 Lost in the Dungeon complication. In due course, I framed an Action Scene which involved the PCs stumbling into a large hall, and one of the Scene Distinctions I provided was Strange Runes. One of the players declared that his PC inspected the runes to discover whether they contained information about the dungeon: mechanically, this meant making a check including the Strange Runes Distinction in his pool, which - when it succeeded - both (i) in the fiction, confirmed that the runes did indeed contain information about the dungeon, and (ii) mechanically removed his PC's Lost in the Dungeon complication.

(2) In my Burning Wheel game, the PCs came to a ruined tower which, in the backstory of one of them, had been the place where he studied magic with his older brother, and had been working on enchanting a nickel-silver mace called The Falcon's Claw. As part of that same backstory, the tower had been assaulted by orcs and the PC's brother, in an attempt to cast a powerful spell to drive off and destroy the orcs, had instead been possessed by a balrog. This was the context for the PC's most important Belief, that I will redeem my brother from his possession by a balrog. And this moment of play was the first time the PC in question had returned to the tower since he had left it 14+ years ago as per his backstory. The PC was in the company of another character, an elven ronin who had left his homeland after his master and captain had been killed by an orcish arrow (more backstory), which the character still wore - broken - about his neck, as a token and reminder of his failure (mechanically, the player had payed a small PC creation cost to have that token on his equipment list). When the wizard PC mentioned that he had left The Falcon's Claw, unfinished, in the tower, the elven PC searched for it (using the BW Scavenging skill). I set the DC in accordance with the Scavenging skill descrition (BW has rather elaborate lists of DCs for most of its skills); the check was made and failed. So I declared that The Falcon's Claw was not found (in a subsequent session it turned out to be in the possession of a nemesis NPC who had been hanging around the tower), but that the search did reveal something else - in the ruin's of the older brother's workroom, which the mage PC had never been allowed to enter while a pupil of his brother, was a stand of cursed black arrows like the one that the elf wore around his neck! This was a shocking revelation for both PCs: for the mage, it suggested that his brother was not evil because possessed by a balrog, but rather had been possessed by the balrog because he was already evil; and for the elf, it suggested that rather than aid his companion to redeem his brother, he needed to take revenge on the brother who had made the arrow that had killed his master.​

If I've understood you correctly, then I would expect that you would see my (1) and (2) as similar to what you're talking about (one a success, the other a failure).

I think perhaps some of Ooftas perspectives follows a similar vein of "shroedinger's dungeon" - all the minutiae of a scene is not pre-designated, just enough to illustrate the key parts and the degree of understanding the PCs can get.

<snip>

But I could be wrong.
I don't get that vibe from [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION]'s posts myself - I get the feeling that Oofta uses a "pre-stocked"/pre-described dungeon.

But I could be wrong too!
 

5ekyu

Hero
I doubt more than 5% of my players ever noticed that section.
Anyway I did let them retrace steps, but I'm not going to hand out literal maps to them.
My,players may or may not rrad various rules section, but when i GM and rules and actions become relevant, of course i ask them, sometimes explain and dedcribe things in terms that reflect the chsracter knows this or that.

So, for example, i sometime do show them maps snd sometimes do describe that there charscter can see this or that even of the player themselves does not have that knowledge.

Kinda like still describing an unlit room to a player who's character has dsrkvision but the player does not.
 

S'mon

Legend
So, for example, i sometime do show them maps

I sometimes show maps, but it's not practical to have me draw out a map that would resemble a player-drawn map. I assume any PC mapping is abstract this way-that way stuff to mark a route. Not Ordinance Survey.
 

S'mon

Legend
BTW running Stonehell and other not very detailed OSR dungeons, I will indeed do the Dungeon World thing of giving them non-pre-existing stuff if they search the room and roll high. Eg I'll roll on Stonehell's Dungeon Dressing table, or the 5e PHB Trinkets table.

The assumption is that there is vastly more general junk lying around than is detailed and no one can find everything.
 

5ekyu

Hero
If I've understood you right, I would put this broadly into the DW way of doing things.

Two examples from my own play (neither 5e, but maybe illustrative nevertheless):

(1) In my Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy game, the PCs were teleported by a Crypt Thing deep into a dungeon (mechanically, I spent 2d12 from the Doom Pool to end the scene involvingthe Crypt Thing). I saddled each PC with a d12 Lost in the Dungeon complication. In due course, I framed an Action Scene which involved the PCs stumbling into a large hall, and one of the Scene Distinctions I provided was Strange Runes. One of the players declared that his PC inspected the runes to discover whether they contained information about the dungeon: mechanically, this meant making a check including the Strange Runes Distinction in his pool, which - when it succeeded - both (i) in the fiction, confirmed that the runes did indeed contain information about the dungeon, and (ii) mechanically removed his PC's Lost in the Dungeon complication.

(2) In my Burning Wheel game, the PCs came to a ruined tower which, in the backstory of one of them, had been the place where he studied magic with his older brother, and had been working on enchanting a nickel-silver mace called The Falcon's Claw. As part of that same backstory, the tower had been assaulted by orcs and the PC's brother, in an attempt to cast a powerful spell to drive off and destroy the orcs, had instead been possessed by a balrog. This was the context for the PC's most important Belief, that I will redeem my brother from his possession by a balrog. And this moment of play was the first time the PC in question had returned to the tower since he had left it 14+ years ago as per his backstory. The PC was in the company of another character, an elven ronin who had left his homeland after his master and captain had been killed by an orcish arrow (more backstory), which the character still wore - broken - about his neck, as a token and reminder of his failure (mechanically, the player had payed a small PC creation cost to have that token on his equipment list). When the wizard PC mentioned that he had left The Falcon's Claw, unfinished, in the tower, the elven PC searched for it (using the BW Scavenging skill). I set the DC in accordance with the Scavenging skill descrition (BW has rather elaborate lists of DCs for most of its skills); the check was made and failed. So I declared that The Falcon's Claw was not found (in a subsequent session it turned out to be in the possession of a nemesis NPC who had been hanging around the tower), but that the search did reveal something else - in the ruin's of the older brother's workroom, which the mage PC had never been allowed to enter while a pupil of his brother, was a stand of cursed black arrows like the one that the elf wore around his neck! This was a shocking revelation for both PCs: for the mage, it suggested that his brother was not evil because possessed by a balrog, but rather had been possessed by the balrog because he was already evil; and for the elf, it suggested that rather than aid his companion to redeem his brother, he needed to take revenge on the brother who had made the arrow that had killed his master.​

If I've understood you correctly, then I would expect that you would see my (1) and (2) as similar to what you're talking about (one a success, the other a failure).

I don't get that vibe from [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION]'s posts myself - I get the feeling that Oofta uses a "pre-stocked"/pre-described dungeon.

But I could be wrong too!
Yeah, i dont recall where it was that i first encountered the "success creates" aspect. I know it was detective/mystety based and it was emphasizing that the "check" was not about "finding a clue thats there" but "is this where the clue is". It may have been Screentime, maybe OtE, a lot of my more indie games experiences blur together these days.

But of course, in 5e, thats pretty much how "forage" plays out. No GM assigns spots for water and food and if you get there you try and find it. More, how,likely is it there and how good is your character and if enough "bam" fiction is added.

Similar concepts play out in some of their downtime mechanics too.

But, for some, once a "dungeon" is wrapped around a space, its about what is put there.
 

5ekyu

Hero
I sometimes show maps, but it's not practical to have me draw out a map that would resemble a player-drawn map. I assume any PC mapping is abstract this way-that way stuff to mark a route. Not Ordinance Survey.
I dont get into trying to categorize mapping too much. I figure if a skilled adventurer is mapping, they do at least as good a job as my buddy Sandy the musician does and so if the "players" map would provide clues so would the PCs, if not more.
 

5ekyu

Hero
BTW running Stonehell and other not very detailed OSR dungeons, I will indeed do the Dungeon World thing of giving them non-pre-existing stuff if they search the room and roll high. Eg I'll roll on Stonehell's Dungeon Dressing table, or the 5e PHB Trinkets table.

The assumption is that there is vastly more general junk lying around than is detailed and no one can find everything.
Exactly.

Especially if there is chsnces to tie finds to interts of the PCs seeding stuff for later.

But you would be surprised how shocked some folks get at the mention of a GM having a chest pop up in a secret compartment because of an exceptional check sometimes in these forum discussions.
 

Remove ads

Top