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

iserith said:

You could still choose to answer the question regardless of whose labels they were.

Click to expand...

You are right I could.

My answer is that labeling player approaches as "good" or "bad" is tone deaf at best and a practice I refuse to engage in. If I ever tell a player "That was a bad approach, so now X" in response to their declared actions, then I will have hit my lowest point as a DM.

Which is why I was advocating that those terms are actually unhelpful in refuting a point. Which you should understand from reading the multiple posts on this subject.

Tony Vargas said:

Don't worry about "gaming the DM accusations."
It is always possible - DMs are human, afterall. The potential opportunities & rewards may be greater the more the system loads the DM, but the potential is always there in any system with anything like a DM role.

There's not even anything wrong with it, necessarily, just as there's nothing innately wrong with system mastery or fudging or illusionism - It's what you do with them that might be judged good or bad.

Click to expand...

Very true, but in the practice of illusions, it is best to present things in the best possible angle.

If we appear inhumanly impartial, then at least it makes it seem more likely

(I don't play that way, I'm constantly "bemoaning" the fate of my monsters and the successes of my players, most of them seem to enjoy the act, especially since I let them know it is all an act on top of it. I'm very silly at times)

Charlaquin said:

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 a part of 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.

Click to expand...

I think this is a point we will never agree on, because it is style and philosophy. I'm an amateur writer, and there are somethings which do not need "resolved" in a scene, they follow logically and I don't need to really put forth the same effort that other sections require to even make progress in.

The same with the game, things which follow naturally with no question do not get resolved, they simply follow naturally. Resolving would require a serious effort of thought, because they are uncertain.

Charlaquin said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm skipping a lot of your post, but I feel like this is a point worth addressing.

Having not read Hitchcock's essay, I may only assume, but my guess is that he was more referencing a light touch of information rather than a blatant telling of all information. I'm going to talk about mystery writing to clarify my point.

In a mystery novel, if the entire plot twists upon knowing about the Evil Twin of the Uncle, and you never reference or hint at it until the final reveal, you have written a poor mystery. For the reader to get the most enjoyment, you generally need to add clues and allusions to the story, things that subtly point in the direction of the hidden information. Because it should be possible for the reader to solve the mystery before the main character does.

However, if the main character gets shot at in the dark of night, and they and the reader have no idea who attacked them, this does not a bad mystery make. This is hidden information, this is something that the character "couldn't know", the identity of their attacker. And yet, it does not by it's nature take away from the mystery and tension, because there is a question to be answered.

And even if that question is answered ten minutes later after a car chase, it still provides exactly the tension I am speaking about. We have entered a realm of uncertainty, which means we must imagine what the outcome will be, and that can be highly exciting.

Additionally, remember that Hitchcock was not talking about gaming, either video game design or tabletop game design. Hitchcock's model is for a separate audience watching the character move through the world. In the world of gaming, the audience is the character moving through the world, which is an entirely different type of engagement. I do not approach playing DnD in the same mindset that I approach watching a movie, and people who direct games might find the some of the techniques used in directing movies to be a poor fit.

Charlaquin said:

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 not telling the players things, and underestimating the drama added by telling them.

Click to expand...

The only negative you give for not telling them seems to be the player protesting "If I'd known I wouldn't have done it". And that is something that has only happened to me once, and that was when I misunderstood a player and had them enter a building they had not actually wanted to enter.

I'm not hiding everything from them, I'm not even hiding most things from them, but sometimes it is more fun when there are things they don't know. And while I could contrive any scenario so that the players had perfect awareness of every aspect of the environment and the NPCs within that environment and all their motivations... sometimes it is more fun not to know. Sometimes it is fun to make a decision with limited information, and find out that it was a poor decision in retrospect. It grounds things for me and my players.




Seeing the discussion of my chandelier example, let me try to make sure things are entirely clear.

Player chooses to swing from the chandelier and fails the roll I called for.

This means they did not successfully swing across to the otherside by use of the chandelier.

This most likely means they fall.

Instead of just saying they missed the jump, or they fall, I decided to spice it up by saying they landed heavily on the chandelier and it broke and fell.

If I really got challenged by a player on why the chandelier broke, I'd inform them that it had been up for a few years, and their landing put too much shearing pressure on the screws holding it in the rafter, causing them to snap, which left too few screws in the wood to hold the weight of the chandelier plus a person standing on it, causing them to rip free and fall.

Of course, I doubt that conversation takes place, because they knew as soon as the roll failed that they were probably going to fall, and they are more concerned with what they do next than arguing what just happened.

Oofta said:

Isn't that the whole point of a third of the monsters in the old monster manuals? Mimics, cloakers, monster floors that eat you?

Ahh, the good old days.

Click to expand...

The old 1e MM2 introduced a monster called a Stunjelly, IIRC, that looked like a wall. At that point, it was possible to build a room entirely out of monsters: 4 stun jellies, a trapper, a lurker above - and a mimic pretending to be the door.

Tony Vargas said:

The old 1e MM2 introduced a monster called a Stunjelly, IIRC, that looked like a wall. At that point, it was possible to build a room entirely out of monsters: 4 stun jellies, a trapper, a lurker above - and a mimic pretending to be the door.

Click to expand...

AIR, they went one further and actually gave us states for a House Mimic - I can't remember if that was the actual name or not, but, it was exactly that - a gigantic mimic that ate you when you went through the door.

OTOH, I do loves the notion of a living dungeon. As in a dungeon that is literally alive.

Hussar said:

AIR, they went one further and actually gave us states for a House Mimic - I can't remember if that was the actual name or not, but, it was exactly that - a gigantic mimic that ate you when you went through the door.

Click to expand...

Was it MV2 or 13A that had the living tower?

OTOH, I do loves the notion of a living dungeon. As in a dungeon that is literally alive.

Click to expand...

The 13A living dungeon concept is an inspired take on the D&D Dungeon stereotype: a maze of Hieronymus Bosch meets MC Esher architecture, full of mismatched monsters and arbitrary magical traps.

Chaosmancer said:

(...I'm constantly "bemoaning" the fate of my monsters and the successes of my players, most of them seem to enjoy the act, especially since I let them know it is all an act on top of it. I'm very silly at times)

Click to expand...

While I largely agree with [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] in this discussion, I am seeking to share some common ground here. Our table very much enjoys this farce as well where I openly lament the party’s latest beat-down of my creatures. We’ll see who laughs last, though! Each battle is but a test for the final showdown with the BBEG!

iserith said:

I think trying to put people into boxes is problematic. I don't incline any particular way.

Click to expand...

Nor did I suggest otherwise - I simply referred to those who incline that way. Some people have preferences/inclinations. I'm one of them. As I've alread posted in this thread, that's why I don't play 5e D&D.

iserith said:

I think "I only like games with this particular method" is self-limiting

Click to expand...

I think you're probably right to me it looks like tautology.

I take it that you also think that such self-limiting is a bad thing or a (modest) character flaw. I personally don't think that. No one is under any obligation to cultivate a taste for all the options that are out there.

Oofta said:

If I understand you,the fundamental difference is that I build my encounters based on how I see the world working. If the chandelier looks fragile or if the building is old with rotting beams it makes sense that the chandelier may not support someone's weight. The state of the building depends on the scene. Abandoned? Well maintained? Opulent but the residents are maintaining a facade they haven't been able to afford for a long time?

I run my games as being a simulation of a fantasy world with simplified rules used to emulate that reality. While I try to balance that with what will be fun and challenging for the group, I start from what makes sense in the wold. Encounters and obstacles are derived from that scene. Player knowledge is always based on PC knowledge.

You approach it as a game first, simulation second.

So if I've captured that correctly, yes we have fundamentally different approaches.

Click to expand...

I doubt that what you describe here is an accurate contrast.

It's not about two different ways of building encounters. It's about two different ways of deciding whether or not this ceiling fixture is, at this point in time, sufficiently decrepit to break/fall under someone's weight.

Oofta said:

I've been broadcasting the general state of the building. Whether this particular fixture is on the verge of collapse becomes a judgement call on the side of the player of whether they want to risk it.

Click to expand...

Is "judgement call" here a synonym for guess? If not, what is the player's judgement meant to be based on?

Oofta said:

I don't coddle my players. If they want to take a risk, they take the risk. If they're in a building with obvious signs of disrepair and wood rot and they want to swing from the chandelier I shouldn't need to spell out the fact that it may not hold. It should be obvious.

Click to expand...

Who do you think is "coddling" their players? (That said, I have been known to offer mine drinks and biscuits.)

How is confronting a player with a hard choice (eg let the assassin go, or else risk a fall from a chandelier to catch him/her!) a form of coddling?

pemerton said:

Is "judgement call" here a synonym for guess? If not, what is the player's judgement meant to be based on?

Click to expand...

One could assume that their judgement call would be based off of the information they have been provided by the DM, including descriptions of the environment so far, the general tone of the campaign, and their basic understanding of the world

pemerton said:

Who do you think is "coddling" their players? (That said, I have been known to offer mine drinks and biscuits.)

How is confronting a player with a hard choice (eg let the assassin go, or else risk a fall from a chandelier to catch him/her!) a form of coddling?

Click to expand...

I believe the reference to coddling was in the idea of telling the player the consequences for all challenges or actions taken by their character.

I would say coddling is a bit harsh, but I can see where the idea finds its roots.

Tony Vargas said:

The old 1e MM2 introduced a monster called a Stunjelly, IIRC

Click to expand...

The Fiend Folio, not MM2.

Tony Vargas said:

Was it MV2 or 13A that had the living tower?

Click to expand...

MV2.

Chaosmancer said:

I think this is a point we will never agree on, because it is style and philosophy. I'm an amateur writer, and there are somethings which do not need "resolved" in a scene, they follow logically and I don't need to really put forth the same effort that other sections require to even make progress in.

The same with the game, things which follow naturally with no question do not get resolved, they simply follow naturally. Resolving would require a serious effort of thought, because they are uncertain.

Click to expand...

At that point it's just semantics though. I would say that the outcome that follows naturally from its inciting action is still a resolution of that action, but if you prefer not to call it that, fine. If the consequences of your character's action follows naturally, that is preferable to that outcome needing to be resolved (by way of dice).

Chaosmancer said:

I'm skipping a lot of your post, but I feel like this is a point worth addressing.

Having not read Hitchcock's essay, I may only assume, but my guess is that he was more referencing a light touch of information rather than a blatant telling of all information. I'm going to talk about mystery writing to clarify my point.

Click to expand...

Essay might have been a bit of a lofty way to describe it, it was a brief excerpt from an interview. Here's what he said: "The element of suspense is giving the audience information. Now, you and I are sitting here. Suddenly a bomb goes off. Up we go, blown to smithereens. What did the audience have from watching this scene? 5 or 10 seconds of shock. Now, we do the scene over again, but we tell the audience there's a bomb underneath this table and it's going to go off in 5 minutes. Now this innocuous conversation about football becomes very potent. 'Don't talk about fooball, there's a bomb under there!' that's what they want to tell us. Then their anxieties will be as long as this clock ticks away."

Obviously he's discussing filmmaking here, where we're talking about RPGs, and specifically action resolution within RPGs. But what I think his point about information making the difference between shock and suspense is still very much applicable here. If the player (who is the audience for the RPG, excepting actual plays) doesn't know the potential consequences - or indeed, if there will even be a consequence - for their declared action, what to they get out of that? Maybe a moment of surprise, if they fail and experience an unexpected consequence. What to they get if they know the potential consequence? Well, now they have information. They know what's at stake, so the time between when the pick up the die, and when they see the result is now imbued with that tension and anxiety Hitchcock spoke of. And whether the outcome is success or failure, that releases the anticipation. If they succeed, they are relieved, if they fail, their anxiety is realized. Either way, this is the more dramatic experience, in my opinion.

Chaosmancer said:

In a mystery novel, if the entire plot twists upon knowing about the Evil Twin of the Uncle, and you never reference or hint at it until the final reveal, you have written a poor mystery. For the reader to get the most enjoyment, you generally need to add clues and allusions to the story, things that subtly point in the direction of the hidden information. Because it should be possible for the reader to solve the mystery before the main character does.

However, if the main character gets shot at in the dark of night, and they and the reader have no idea who attacked them, this does not a bad mystery make. This is hidden information, this is something that the character "couldn't know", the identity of their attacker. And yet, it does not by it's nature take away from the mystery and tension, because there is a question to be answered.

And even if that question is answered ten minutes later after a car chase, it still provides exactly the tension I am speaking about. We have entered a realm of uncertainty, which means we must imagine what the outcome will be, and that can be highly exciting.

Click to expand...

This is a very different kind of drama than we're talking about though. You're talking about plot elements, I'm talking about immediate consequences of actions. I'm not advocating giving plot details away to the character, especially in a mystery scenario. I'm saying, don't hide the stakes from the character. Let them know what they're putting on the line in the moment, or its loss is only an unpleasant surprise instead of a release of dramatic tension.

Chaosmancer said:

Additionally, remember that Hitchcock was not talking about gaming, either video game design or tabletop game design. Hitchcock's model is for a separate audience watching the character move through the world. In the world of gaming, the audience is the character moving through the world, which is an entirely different type of engagement. I do not approach playing DnD in the same mindset that I approach watching a movie, and people who direct games might find the some of the techniques used in directing movies to be a poor fit.

Click to expand...

Indeed, in gaming the audience is an active participant in the narrative, which forces us to address things a little differently than we would in a medium where the audience is a passive observer. That said, in that context I think it is still necessary for the audience to know what is at stake to create suspense.

Chaosmancer said:

The only negative you give for not telling them seems to be the player protesting "If I'd known I wouldn't have done it". And that is something that has only happened to me once, and that was when I misunderstood a player and had them enter a building they had not actually wanted to enter.

I'm not hiding everything from them, I'm not even hiding most things from them, but sometimes it is more fun when there are things they don't know. And while I could contrive any scenario so that the players had perfect awareness of every aspect of the environment and the NPCs within that environment and all their motivations... sometimes it is more fun not to know. Sometimes it is fun to make a decision with limited information, and find out that it was a poor decision in retrospect. It grounds things for me and my players.

Click to expand...

The bolded section does not hold true for me.

Chaosmancer said:

Seeing the discussion of my chandelier example, let me try to make sure things are entirely clear.

Player chooses to swing from the chandelier and fails the roll I called for.

This means they did not successfully swing across to the otherside by use of the chandelier.

This most likely means they fall.

Click to expand...

Ok, but you can't know with 100% certainty that the player knows this. Telling them "If you fail, you'll fall, you sure you want to risk that?" is a simple matter that handily insures everyone is on the same page. If the player already expected their character to fall on a failure, no harm done, but if they didn't realize this was a potential risk, you avoid a potential dispute. For me, that's reason enough to give the player that reminder, and I really don't see any compelling reason not to. I don't think this is a situation where "it's more fun not to know" is a compelling argument in favor of not telling the player, because as you observe, it's likely pretty obvious, and on the off chance that the player doesn't realize their character might fall here, it's going to be an unpleasant surprise.

Chaosmancer said:

Instead of just saying they missed the jump, or they fall, I decided to spice it up by saying they landed heavily on the chandelier and it broke and fell.

Click to expand...

But that's not just a bit of narrative flair there, there is an actual meaningful difference between falling and the chandelier remaining up, or falling and the chandelier falling as well. If the chandelier falls, it's no longer up there for other characters to try and swing on, or to cut it and drop it on the heads of reinforcement guards that show up at the bottom, or whatever. The decision to make the chandelier fall isn't a purely aesthetic one, it has a very real impact on the players' future options.

Chaosmancer said:

If I really got challenged by a player on why the chandelier broke, I'd inform them that it had been up for a few years, and their landing put too much shearing pressure on the screws holding it in the rafter, causing them to snap, which left too few screws in the wood to hold the weight of the chandelier plus a person standing on it, causing them to rip free and fall.

Of course, I doubt that conversation takes place, because they knew as soon as the roll failed that they were probably going to fall, and they are more concerned with what they do next than arguing what just happened.

Click to expand...

Sure. Chances are, no one is going to make a stink about this outcome, even if they are a bit miffed by it. In the grand scheme of things, this is a really minor blip, not worth getting into an argument over. Most players aren't going to be bothered by this call, and those that are will most likely just roll their eyes and move on. But I still think that on the whole, reminding the players of the potential consequences of their actions, and designing scenarios not to hide that information from their characters, leads to an overall more satisfying experience. If you disagree, that's cool. Again, not telling you how to run your game, just telling you why I choose to run mine the way I do.