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

Guest 6801328 · Apr 25, 2019

pemerton said:
Either way, I couldn't imagine it playing out like [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s example.

That makes two of us!

pemerton · Apr 25, 2019

5ekyu said:
There are some GMs who (maybe poor form or maybe by design) dont explicitly mark the end of their stage in the play loop with a formal declaration every scene.

<snip>

Sometimes it just a more rookie GM thing but sometimes it's more a setting atmosphere and sense of impending threat that *formally acknowledging the beginning and end stage of each segment in the hitherto agreed upon by all parties play loop* fits like letting the air out of a wet bslloon.

DM Dave1 said:
Why would a DM "by design" not signal to the players that they need to do something? What does that even mean?

The comment was about not using a formal declaration/acknowledgement. And the reasong given was to preserve atmosphere.

Another reason - which applies at my table - is informality among friends, and going along with the back-and-forth of play. If I describe a situation and a player says "OK, I'm doing this" I'm not going to disregard the action declaration just because that player didn't wait for me to ask "What do you do?"

Oofta · Apr 25, 2019

Regarding the wall that's just a wall ...

pemerton said:
To me, this would seem a good reason not to call for a check at all, because nothing is at stake.. Just narrate the climbing of the unremarable wall and keep moving until something more significant comes up.

Who said there was no consequence t failure? Just because it's a minor background issue, doesn't mean it's not important. Don't get me wrong, a lot of times the wall is just climbed. But if there's time pressure or falling from the wall could cause injury or other setback then I think a check should be called for. Maybe the quickest way would be to climb but there's also a longer way around or a more dangerous route, so on and so forth.

I'm just saying some obstacles are simple. Sometimes a chest is trapped because it makes sense for it to be trapped and there is a level of risk, that doesn't mean I'm going to make a big deal out of it.

But it also goes back to who is overcoming the obstacle; the PC or the player? Some obstacles will be player challenges by their nature, I simply think some things should be PC challenges.

Bawylie · Apr 25, 2019

Oofta said:
Regarding the wall that's just a wall ...

Who said there was no consequence t failure? Just because it's a minor background issue, doesn't mean it's not important. Don't get me wrong, a lot of times the wall is just climbed. But if there's time pressure or falling from the wall could cause injury or other setback then I think a check should be called for. Maybe the quickest way would be to climb but there's also a longer way around or a more dangerous route, so on and so forth.

I'm just saying some obstacles are simple. Sometimes a chest is trapped because it makes sense for it to be trapped and there is a level of risk, that doesn't mean I'm going to make a big deal out of it.

But it also goes back to who is overcoming the obstacle; the PC or the player? Some obstacles will be player challenges by their nature, I simply think some things should be PC challenges.

I have a problem understanding this. How do you challenge a PC? It can’t think, it can’t act, it can’t do anything other than what the player says it does. It’s like a User Interface but it isn’t itself the User. It’s always the player behind the avatar that has to think and act.

What am I missing?

pemerton · Apr 25, 2019

Charlaquin said:
I don’t think it’s so much an assumption that the players will need that level of structure, but rather that D&D 5e aims to create a play experience that said structure facilitates.

<snip>

Sounds like 4e to me. And that’s not a bad thing. I still think 4e is the best-designed edition of D&D, from a mechanical standpoint.

What I'm not sure about is what is distinctive about the mechanics of 5e vs 4e that make one or the other approach suitable. That is, if someone ran 4e as you run 5e, what would break down? Or if someone ran 5e in the 4e style, what would break down?

I'm not disputing that there are differences between the systems - the ones that are most obvious to me are (i) the lack of skill challenges in 5e and (ii) the asymmetric resource recovery in 5e - but I'm not sure how these differences bear upon the topic of this thread.

Hussar · Apr 25, 2019

Well, [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], the fact that no consequence was ever posited points to the notion that there was no consequence. And, at that point I think we all agree, regardless of approach, you just tell the players they climb over the wall and move on.

Same goes for pretty much any sort of obstacle where time will overcome it. I have to admit, I have no idea why 5e removed the "Take 20" rules. I suppose, at the end of the day, they don't really need them - you're not supposed to roll anyway, so, just get on with it. I always did think, though, that Take 20 was a nice mechanic in the game.

Too much power to the players maybe?

I would like to say, that as I read this last page of the thread, I find myself nodding with pretty much everyone. Well done you folks.

iserith · Apr 25, 2019

pemerton said:
What I'm not sure about is what is distinctive about the mechanics of 5e vs 4e that make one or the other approach suitable.

Play it and get back to us.

pemerton · Apr 25, 2019

Oofta said:
Just because it's a minor background issue, doesn't mean it's not important.

I'm not meaning to be a smart-arse, but to me that looks almost self-contradictory: how can it be minor yet important?

Oofta said:
Sometimes a chest is trapped because it makes sense for it to be trapped and there is a level of risk, that doesn't mean I'm going to make a big deal out of it.

But calling for a check makes it a big deal - or at least that's how it seems to me.

I think part of the explanation for our different conceptions here might be very different approaches to establishing the adventure/scenario.

Bawylie said:
I have a problem understanding this. How do you challenge a PC? It can’t think, it can’t act, it can’t do anything other than what the player says it does. It’s like a User Interface but it isn’t itself the User. It’s always the player behind the avatar that has to think and act.

What am I missing?

I think challenge the PC means something like establish a ficitonal situation in which the PC faces a challenge.

pemerton · Apr 25, 2019

iserith said:
Play it and get back to us.

There was a reason I asked [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION].

iserith · Apr 25, 2019

pemerton said:
There was a reason I asked [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION].

I think my suggestion will be more informative for you and for us. Traveler and Burning Wheel can only take you so far, or us, where these discussions are concerned.