If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Ok, guilty of the "every 5 feet" accusations. And I'm really not...honestly...accusing you (or anybody specific) of doing that; it's a little bit of illustrative hyperbole, because I've seen it happen. And I think in some ways it's the result of really old school (e.g., or really E.G.G., Tomb of Horrors) ideas about D&D.
But to answer the question at the top of your post, the point is that we're trying to get away from essentially random "Perception" checks...whether they are every 5' or simply at every suspicious door...because it feels, to us, like algorithmic playing. 'Don't forget to roll that trap check die at every suspicious door.' It doesn't...again to us...feel like storytelling.
To make another hyperbolic illustration, imagine if you had a "combat" skill (my favorite game, TOR, does in fact have this skill) and if the DM said, "Five orcs spring from the shadows" you would reply, "I roll Combat...18!" And the DM says, "Ok, all the orcs are dead." I know you disagree, but to me that gets the same Fun Rating as "I roll Perception to see if there are traps."
And, just to make this point ONE MORE TIME, I also don't think it would be fun to simply embellish: "I leapeth bravely into the fray and cleaveth with my trusty greatsword....18 on the Combat roll!" That is most definitely NOT what I'm advocating.
(You may object to this example because combat has lots of dice rolling, and I understand if it seems like I am against dice rolling. If that truly seems like a contradiction I can elaborate further, although probably not until tonight.)
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
We've tried to tell you a bunch of times, but you insist on only viewing it through the lens of your play. I'll freely admit that, according to how you say you play, asking to roll is a very reasonable action on the part of your players. This is for two main reasons -- one, you do not levy new consequences for failure very often, instead maintaining the status quo, and; two, you often do not conclusively resolve the uncertainty when a roll succeeded but just offer a hint. This is a fine way to play (I wouldn't enjoy it), but it's these two assumptions of play that lead you to keep questioning why an approach helps over a straight ask to roll.
In my game, the action will be conclusively resolved one way or the other. An appropriate approach may get you an automatic resolution in your favor, and, on a failure, may constrain the consequence. Further, the DC of the task will be set depending on your approach, so, again, a reasonable approach limits your risk. On a success, the uncertainty is conclusively resolved -- no questions are left. On a failure, the uncertainty is also conclusively resolved, but not in a way the player wanted.
If you asked to just make a roll in my game, you'd not have provided an approach, so I could set the DC however I wanted and assume that you did things that I wanted you to do, and, if you failed, the situation would change in a negative way. Listening at a door is an approach I can work with. It's solid, I can set an appropriate DC or just give an autosuccess (if there's a party on the other side, frex). On a failure, though, something will change in the fiction -- you either made a loud noise and alerted things on the other side, or the door opens to reveal a foe and you're surprised, or an earworm was infesting the door and you've contracted it. Asking to make a roll when failure results in bad things is a bad strategy, so, yeah, that would be something gained by providing an approach instead of asking if you can try to fail.
I, personally, very much dislike the creation of paranoia by use of the mechanics in an unclear manner.
Is there a reason you imagine I would not? This assumption that if you don't use the right words you'll get DM-screwed is WRONG. Stop.
I'd likely tell them this as part of the initial description. Would you wait until someone asked to roll? Of course not. Do try to not assume we're being dicks. When you do, it makes it hard to not assume you're not being a dick.
Oofta
Legend
To me what you're describing is covered under complex traps in the DMG. Which I handle differently on the rare occasion I use one. Then again, I may call for an athletics check and an arcana check (how would you describe "I decipher the magic runes with an arcana check" anyway?) along with whatever skills and minor puzzles I can think to engage the majority of the party and may require multiple steps.
I don't do that often though because most of my players in my last campaign found it boring.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
No, nor did I make the claim that anyone has said that. I would appreciate if you did not put words in my mouth.
Interesting. So, say someone posts a thread asking for advice with a problem they are experiencing - say, for example, that their players never engage with their Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws to gain Inspiration, and never remember to spend Inspiration when they have it. Now say one person advises them with, I don’t know, a house rule they use for Inspiration, while another person says, “I run it as written, but I have not experienced this problem - the way I adjudicate actions encourages players to think more actively about spending Inspiration when a check is called for.” Is the latter person telling the querrent that their game is boring and to come to them when they want to know the right way to do it? If so, is the former person not doing the same thing? Why or why not?
Which is exactly what those of us who use the goal and approach style are doing.
No one claims that it is, or that it must be followed to the letter. But, as the rulebook’s advice is a not insignificant part of the reason many of us run the game the way we do, citing the relevant parts of the rules is a necessary component of explaining how we run the game and why.
Solid GMing advice! And accordingly, I do not demand that my players speak in first person or an accent, nor do I discourage them from doing so if they wish. I myself iften narrate NPCs actions and dialogue in third person. Note, however, that Paul still describes his character’s attitude and actions, he does not simply annonice skills he wishes to roll.
Now, the DMG does specifically discuss allowing players to simply declare checks. It is given as one of three ways a DM might go about adjudicating actions. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with using any of those three styles, or any other style you might have independently developed. Personally, I prefer the style described as “the middle path” by the DMG, because it is the only one of the three that is says does not have disadvantages.
Then I tell them I need more information in order to adjudicate their action, using the “I’m hearing [blank], I’m not sure of [blank]” format I mentioned earlier. “I’m hearing you think your Proficiency in the Insight skill will help you to achieve your goal here. I’m not sure what your goal is or what your character is doing to try to achieve it.”
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I don’t know, I think the word choice is accurate. I do think it works better to run it the way I do, that’s why I do so. You’re free to disagree with me. If your way works better for you, then I wouldn’t expect you to run it the way I do.
Oofta
Legend
I don't remember ever saying like any of that. I freely admit I don't think insight is mind reading. But there's no consequences to failure? I have no idea where that comes from.
Huh? I'm not playing "gotcha". If there's a reason for the PC to believe putting their ear to the door is dangerous and the player isn't cautious I'm reminding him that his PC should be a bit paranoid. The last time I used a door that tried to eat a PC i wasn't old enough to legally drink.
My point is I don't see a reason to state a goal in most cases. It just becomes "I listen at the door" aka "I make a perception check at the door". The goal is obvious. As far as what senses are used I believe the phrase was "I sniff at the door to see if I smell the perfume". If a PC is at the door and doing a perception check I'm going to give them the smell of the perfume if it's important to the game. The way it was stated made it sound like it would not be obvious unless they were specifically saying they were sniffing the air. Conversely if they were sniffing at the base of the door they may not hear something. Not my style. If it's not yours either than I don't see why it matters how they describe their perception check.
Traps don't have neon signs saying "I'm trapped" in my campaigns. On the other hand, I don't use traps particularly often but when I do they're logical located and I rely heavily on passive skill checks.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Well that’s just the thing. You wouldn’t. You would say “I carfully study the runes to see if I can decipher their meaning,” or ask “do I recognize these runes from my study of Arcana?” or something along those lines. Maybe if you can read the language they’re written in, the DM just tells you what they say. Maybe if they’re in a long-forgotten language that has passed completely out of mortal memory, the DM just tells you you can’t decipher them no matter how hard you try. Maybe they think you might be able to read them given enough time, but time is not of the essence, so they just tell you “after several dozen minutes of careful study, you determine [whatever].” Or maybe time is of the essence, so they say “It’s going to take some time. If you study them for 10 minutes and succeed on a DC 15 Intelligence check, you’ll be able to decipher them.” and you ask “would my Arcana proficiency be applicable?”
Bawylie
A very OK person
I don’t think they came close to delivering on that pitch, but I do remember that as a selling point.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Yes, you very clearly indicated that a failure for insight would be no information. This is not a consequence, it's just the status quo. Nothing has changed, so therefore no consequence.
I've said this before, you ignored it last time as well. This evasive answering is very indicative of less than earnest engagement.
Didn't say gotchas, said I dislike using mechanics to instill paranoia. You, clearly, enjoy using mechanics to engender paranoia, via asking for approach just to instill it or answering success with not resolving the uncertainty, just smearing it around a bit and leaving it uncertain. Personally, I think a door that tries to eat someone to be damn cool. My players would, too, and they'd be able to clearly see how their approach led to getting eaten by it.
Sometimes goals are obvious. That doesn't mean that a statement of approach is no longer needed, or that the goal doesn't exist. Sometimes, though, the goal isn't obvious. If a player is sniffing a door for perfume in my game it would be because I've already established that the scent of perfume is a marker for a thing the character cares about. If your assuming that I'd have this happen in my game at a random door, you're off base by a large margin. That declaration in my game would be a specific set of circumstances that had a clear line traced through previously established fiction to the present moment, and it would be very important that perfume is or is not on the door. You keep assuming we play as you do, with vague traps that might be on any given door, but this is not the case. You cannot evaluate it as if it is.
Sure they do, to highly competent tomb raiders. There's holes in odd places, discolorations, mismatched tiles, etc. If you actually treat traps as utterly invisible until the player guesses it's time to make a check and succeeds (or invests in a high passive score to avoid secret traps), then you should take it as given we play very different games. To me, traps aren't gotchas that players can stumble into, but are encounters all their own -- they have tells and signals because I want the players to interact with them, not hide them.
Similar Threads
- Poll
