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

Guest 6801328 · May 8, 2019

Charlaquin said:
I mean, I got that it was a joke, just not the most diplomatic joke given the sensitivity of the topic.

But also a joke with a point: how could it not be obvious why "Can I have a Perception check? 4? Ok, nevermind...." is a DMing technique that could be improved upon?

Charlaquin · May 8, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
But also a joke with a point: how could it not be obvious why "Can I have a Perception check? 4? Ok, nevermind...." is a DMing technique that could be improved upon?

It’s certainly odd to me that it wouldn’t be obvious to someone else why such an exchange would be less than ideal. But I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt that it probably isn’t an accurate representation of what their games actually look like. I’ve had my approach misrepresented and that misrepresentation ridiculed enough to know that it only serves to muddy the issue and make everyone involved angrier and more defensive. It’d be nice if some kind of value or understanding could be reached from this mess of a thread, and I think jokes like that are only a hinderance to that objective.

pemerton · May 8, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
But also a joke with a point: how could it not be obvious why "Can I have a Perception check? 4? Ok, nevermind...." is a DMing technique that could be improved upon?

There are rulebooks that recommend that, in such circumstances, the GM should make the check. Two I can think of off the top of my head are Classic Traveller (1977) and the 4e D&D DMG (2008).

The 5e Basic PDF (pp 59, 69) appears to suggest the use of Passive Perception in lieu of the player or the GM actually rolling a die. To me that seems like a fairly simple variant on the GM rolls approach, but maybe it's more than that and I'm missing it?

Anyway, if the idea is that changes in the game state should all be consequent on players' action declarations, then these GM rolls appproaches seem just as undesirable as calling for a roll from the player.

pemerton · May 8, 2019

Charlaquin said:
if you're putting untelegraphed traps in your dungeons to establish a mood, and the optimal player strategy for safely dealing with these untelegraphed traps spoils the mood... I dunno, doesn't seem like a very effective approach to the stated goal.

Like I said, maybe the idea is that players play PCs who fit with the mood, and the GM picks up and manages (perhaps manages away) all the potential adverse consequences.

I haven't got REH's The Scalet Citadel in front of me, but as I recall it there are two main traps/hazards: there's a pit, which Conan avoids falling into in the dark due to his uncanny senses (in game terms, this could be some sort of Perception mechanic at work); and there's the hell plant, which - as best I recall - Conan defeats by dint of physical prowess (in game temrs, this could be resolving some sort of check or series of checks to eliminate the triggered hazard).

A GM who drops in traps and hazards at (what s/he takes to be) a dramatically appropriate frequency will not purge players who play their PCs like Conan. There'll be the occasional narration of the noticed trap (like the pit) and there'll be the occasional stumbling into a trap/hazard (like the hellplant) which the PCs defeat without debilitating downstream consequences for their prospects of success.

And if the struggle against the hellplant looks like it is being more demanding than was intended by the GM, then in the approach I'm describing here the GM might manipulate things "behind the scenes" to compensate - whether reducing the threat posed by some later planned encounter, or fudging one of the checks made to deal with the plant, or whatever other device this sort of GM has up his/her sleeve.

I personally don't play in the style I've just described - in a different current thread in General, I've been discussing (with [MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION] and others) what I think are ways of getting the REH-like dramatic pacing and consequnces but with less reliance on GM-side determinations. But I think that the sort of approach I've described in this thread is a widely-adopted one. I'm hesitant to project my own account of the approach too readily onto individual posters each of whom has his/her own unique way of playing RPGs, but with appropriate caution and no intention to cause offence, I would conjecture that [MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION], [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6789021]Yardiff[/MENTION] can all recognise some aspects of how they approach GMing in what I've set out in this post.

Oofta · May 8, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
But also a joke with a point: how could it not be obvious why "Can I have a Perception check? 4? Ok, nevermind...." is a DMing technique that could be improved upon?

I trust my players to not act on meta-game knowledge like this. If they do I'll ask them politely not to. I like having a cooperative relationship where we all work together like mature people and play fair.

Oh, wait ... would putting smileys on that make it seem like I wasn't implicating that you don't trust your players? :hmm:

Guest 6801328 · May 8, 2019

Oofta said:
I trust my players to not act on meta-game knowledge like this. If they do I'll ask them politely not to. I like having a cooperative relationship where we all work together like mature people and play fair.

See? I didn't even need smilies. It was taken as a compliment!

But more seriously, our gaming values are so completely different that it should be no surprise that we find different mechanics appealing.

You apparently don't mind if the DM tips his hand because you expect players to ignore that information.

I think it makes the game less fun if the players have to compartmentalize like that...I want players, to the extent possible, to be in the same mental state as their characters...so I'd rather not tip my hand.

Umbran · May 8, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
Should I have added some smilies?

Given how often people choose, "But it was only a joke," as a defense for pouring a bucket of sarcasm and derision on others... well, the number of smilies is probably the least of your worries at this point.

Satyrn · May 8, 2019

Oofta said:
I would say that there's a lot of gray areas. The ledge example may play out much the same other than I'd be okay if the response to my "what do you do" is "I make an acrobatics check 15 to get across".

Sure, Cool. I'd be fine with that, too.

I don't think you understand just how has the DMing in my example was, though, so I'm baffled that you want to show ways you do the same thing. It's even more baffling that you're doing that while trying to distance yourself from the "other side' while you keep showing you have a lot in common with them.

What the heck is the disconnect?

Charlaquin · May 8, 2019

Oofta said:
I trust my players to not act on meta-game knowledge like this. If they do I'll ask them politely not to. I like having a cooperative relationship where we all work together like mature people and play fair.

Oh, wait ... would putting smileys on that make it seem like I wasn't implicating that you don't trust your players?

I don’t think this implies that you believe a lack of trust exists between goal-and-approach DMs and their players at all, so I’m not sure what your point is here.

This is probably a misunderstanding based on a difference of values. I don’t need to trust my players not to use meta-game knowledge because I don’t think using meta-game knowledge is a bad thing. You trust your players not to use meta-game knowledge, while I allow them to use meta-game knowledge if they so desire.

Guest 6801328 · May 8, 2019

Umbran said:
Given how often people choose, "But it was only a joke," as a defense for pouring a bucket of sarcasm and derision on others... well, the number of smilies is probably the least of your worries at this point.

Except I wasn't really joking, as I said in my next post. Sure, I was trying to be funny and a wee bit hyperbolic at the same time, but that's different from "just kidding."

And then Oofta pretty much confirmed that what I was saying...about him (and others)...was true.

If anything, I should have added the smilies to the "Should I have added smilies?" comment. Because that was the sarcastic part.