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

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
But on the other hand, I strongly dislike it when the knowledge of the players and their characters doesn't line up.

Yeah I think that's a great argument for:

1) Just letting players use what they know. It's just not worth the effort trying to keep compartmentalized knowledge straight.

2) DM should introduce lots of new monsters.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
In my games the PCs know quite a bit about monsters if the monsters are well known in the region. They don't necessarily have to justify it, people know that you need to burn trolls with fire simply because it's common knowledge. I'll even tell people that have never played before if I think their PCs should know it.

If the PCs are facing monsters not common to the region I will usually give them knowledge checks. So if shambling mounds are highly unusual I'll allow nature and history checks and base the DC on how rare I think they really are.

What I've seen other DMs do (especially in AL type games) is that you somehow have to prove that your PC has personally run into that monster. That was annoying.
 


G

Guest 6801328

Guest
-Or think they know. ;)

That's one reason I try to avoid saying the formal name of the monster, unless there is a strong reason these characters would know what it is. Instead I'll physically describe the monster. If they want to make assumptions about what it "is" that's on them.
 


Yardiff

Adventurer
Trolls, beholders, Lich's, Mindflayers, zombies, mummies, skeletons, ghosts, vampires, werewolves, dragons. The standard D&D rogue's gallery. They are used so often, that most players will be familiar with them and their abilities.

But D&D has tons of monsters, many of which probably don't see a whole lot of use. I prefer to use monsters that my players may not be familiar with, or I alter an existing monster to make it less predictable. And when I do use a classic monster that is well known, I don't make a mystery out of it. This game of guess-the-weakness just isn't very compelling to a whole lot of veteran players and DM's alike.

I disagree with this, since after 30+ years of play I'm not jaded about RPing a low level character. But you seem to be suggesting all these other veterans seem to be.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
I disagree with this, since after 30+ years of play I'm not jaded about RPing a low level character. But you seem to be suggesting all these other veterans seem to be.
I love low level play, but not because I have to pretend I don't know things. There's so much else to do!
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
I disagree with this, since after 30+ years of play I'm not jaded about RPing a low level character. But you seem to be suggesting all these other veterans seem to be.

Is it possible to like playing lower-level characters but not like playing dumb about the hard-won knowledge a player has earned?
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
I love RPing low-level characters, too!

I just don't find feigned ignorance to be an interesting/compelling aspect of RP. I'm more into exploring their personality and quirks and motivations. I'm interested in how they are different from other PCs and NPCs, rather than how they are similar to others of their kind (be that race, origin, backstory, experience, etc.).

There's only so much time at the table.
 


Remove ads

Top