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

[Bawylie]

"For any followers of this thread who genuinely are interested in how "goal and approach" differs from generic "there is a secret door" or "there is a trap", and not just looking ways to argue, here are some usage notes from the above scenario:"

Just to be clear, were you " not just looking for ways to argue" with the by your own admission derisive roll for every 5' post comment in that post where you put out this example? Or when even now you frame it as against a "generic" scene?

I mean they seem basically more contentious add-ons that just attempts to spotlight differences.

But about your scene.

It sound an awful lot like the escape room we did a few weeks ago. We, people, find piles of clues. Some have distinct sizes - three numbers on a vase bottom and a three number combo lock -(10 bottle slot shelf, 10 element bar code) - others may be color coded etc.

In that same escape room, we had a number of clues or hints we could ask for and I swear that first room clue was about as on point as your girl safety net was. It was basically pointing us to a place to try to get what we need, much like your girl sent them back to the underhouse.


That escape room we did at the con was fun. It was fun even for me, and I cannot see well so a good chunk of it was not gonna be much for me.

But, the thing that strikes me about your example and now the usage notes bring home (I was wondering) is that *like our escape room** there is no bringing into the mix anything about the characters being played, the game system, be it diceless, be it RPS larping, be it a pamphlet sized character- on- post-card or HERO system 400+ pages of non-setting rules.

So, it really does not spotlight "goal and approach" vs "character-centered" play in an RPG at all. It seems to be the epitome of "playing me or challenging me, the player" as opposed to "playing Hans or challenging Hans the dwarf".

Honestly, like the escape room, it has a lot more in common to a board game than an RPG.

That's fine, I love them. Have loads of fun with board games, with chess where no dice are needed either and we just move our pieces around.

Or Go, my stone never once is a "person" just a game piece and it's about how well I as a player choose my moves etc. But, every stone is the same. One stone has the same chance as any other st whatever task it is set to do. No reference cards bring up the dwarf stone's masonry or the very perceptive elf'stone.

I recommend every GM of diced games take a turn or two at running diceless systems. It imo really helps refine some techniques.

I am glad your players enjoyed the sample setup you gave them. But if that is your flagship case for what defines and sets apart "approach -and goal" I gotta say it sorta spotlight all that stuff about how it "devalues" all those chargen choices the system being discussed requires (and that by extension a GM using that system required) even tho it seems like the "approach and goal" advocates seem to keep saying they are not devaluing those choices. I mean, how many times have we seen the kind of "oh no, character stats matter... with frequent "we used them passively or..." insert other.

Yet in your whole example and your explicstive usage notes to your your case even more, not one reference to a trait of the PC that I can see. No point where it was important that it was a halfling or a gnome or a wizard or a rogue or... well... anything "character".

It seems 100% play and GM puzzle and you did not se fit to show any point where character mattered to the outcome.

That's very very informative about your presentation of what separates "approach and goal" from the rest **in actual play** and I thank you for that.

By the way, in my non "approach and goal" gameplay, I dont throw random or generic secret doors in either. They require time too. So, it's good that those are not the only alternatives.


As for this last part...

"So basically you can keep giving stronger and stronger hints until they get it, but the hints should always feel earned."

I am sure you know but in some games, the idea that "they might not get it" is also an option and the scenes and follow-ups and bigger campaign proceeds on... rather than just keeping piling on more and more stronger hints until they "get it."

The character/chargen stuff comes up when interacting with the game’s difficulty - not its challenges.

In that same scenario, it may well have been that the adventurers did NOT place the bottles in the correct place at all and instead attempted to force the door. If so, THEN Hans the Dwarf’s prodigious Strength would have been front and center - trying (by way of a Strength check) to overcome the door’s DC.

How about this? There is a mystery. It has a correct answer. You’re presented with the central question and tasked with figuring it out. Maybe a person was killed or a treasure was stolen.

Looking at the scene, you may take a guess at what happened and if you hit an Intelligence check of DC 30, you’d get it exactly right. Or if you just said the answer and got it exactly right, that’d work too. But if you can’t hit that DC 30, you decide to do some investigation.

You find a handful of clues that give evidence about what happened. Each clue you find drops the DC by 6. After a couple clues, you (player) may have enough info to just guess the right answer.

But maybe you’re not sure, so your character puts the clue together and hazards a guess (goal: solve mystery. Approach: by reviewing the evidence and deducing the likely solution). You’ve got two clues so the DC is now 18. Your character has +2 INT and training in Investigation. You might make this check.

But say you fail. You continue investigating and grab 3 more clues. Now you have the answer and know for sure what happened.

This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. If you’ve figured out a surefire way past an obstacle, there isn’t a need to roll a check. If you’ve got a pretty good (but not fail-proof) way past an obstacle, you probably need an ability check. Maybe you take some precautions so that you make the ability check on the most favorable of possible terms. That’s alright. And maybe you put in a bunch of work and arrive at the fail-proof way past the obstacle (as [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] ‘s group did).

Any way past an obstacle may be valid. Some ways carry greater or lower chances of success, including 0% and 100%.

Your super smart investigator might make the DC 30 INT (investigation) check. Maybe you, a super smart player, already figured it out! Or maybe both you and your character need some hints before either of you try. In any case, there’s more than one way to skin this cat.

(Two soldiers guard a door or whatever. One always lies and one always tells the truth. What’s the DC to determine whether a guard is actually telling the truth? Is there a fail-proof way to determine which one is telling the truth?).

Edit: spelling

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Whew! I was kinda worried my joke would fizzle, too, @DM Dave1.

Heh. Oh, I've seen your abundant fine work around here. You're like the change bank, you make money with volume. Wait, I think I lost track of my metaphor there...


Also, to address the OP once more, I present Sir Isaac Newton:

[SECTION]Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things. -Isaac Newton[/SECTION]
In other words, a simply stated goal and approach should suffice to know a truthful NPC is telling the truth. Setting a DC, or multiple DCs, just confuses things when there is no meaningful consequence of failure.

 

[5ekyu]

The character/chargen stuff comes up when interacting with the game’s difficulty - not its challenges.

In that same scenario, it may well have been that the adventurers did NOT place the bottles in the correct place at all and instead attempted to force the door. If so, THEN Hans the Dwarf’s prodigious Strength would have been front and center - trying (by way of a Strength check) to overcome the door’s DC.

How about this? There is a mystery. It has a correct answer. You’re presented with the central question and tasked with figuring it out. Maybe a person was killed or a treasure was stolen.

Looking at the scene, you may take a guess at what happened and if you hit an Intelligence check of DC 30, you’d get it exactly right. Or if you just said the answer and got it exactly right, that’d work too. But if you can’t hit that DC 30, you decide to do some investigation.

You find a handful of clues that give evidence about what happened. Each clue you find drops the DC by 6. After a couple clues, you (player) may have enough info to just guess the right answer.

But maybe you’re not sure, so your character puts the clue together and hazards a guess (goal: solve mystery. Approach: by reviewing the evidence and deducing the likely solution). You’ve got two clues so the DC is now 18. Your character has +2 INT and training in Investigation. You might make this check.

But say you fail. You continue investigating and grab 3 more clues. Now you have the answer and know for sure what happened.

This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. If you’ve figured out a surefire way past an obstacle, there isn’t a need to roll a check. If you’ve got a pretty good (but not fail-proof) way past an obstacle, you probably need an ability check. Maybe you take some precautions so that you make the ability check on the most favorable of possible terms. That’s alright. And maybe you put in a bunch of work and arrive at the fail-proof way past the obstacle (as [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] ‘s group did).

Any way past an obstacle may be valid. Some ways carry greater or lower chances of success, including 0% and 100%.

Your super smart investigator might make the DC 30 INT (investigation) check. Maybe you, a super smart player, already figured it out! Or maybe both you and your character need some hints before either of you try. In any case, there’s more than one way to skin this cat.

(Two soldiers guard a door or whatever. One always lies and one always tells the truth. What’s the DC to determine whether a guard is actually telling the truth? Is there a fail-proof way to determine which one is telling the truth?).

Edit: spelling

Read the usage notes, then players have zero reason to try Hans strength and a roll, the GM will keep giving them more and more hints until the players "get it" the player-side solution.

Why take a guess (roll mechanics) - there *is* a player side solution?

More to the point, why did I take all those chargrn chouces to get to Investigate 30 as a reasonable option if *me* the player can just solve these with hints that keep coming until we "get it" built into, cooked into the challenge design?

I know (or strongly suspect) the fight scenes are gonna be much more stat driven, not as "find a solution that avoids uncertainty." So I dont need my character to have stats to solve scenes and types where, literally, the GM builds it and plans it to not even need be worth mentioning a single character trait?

Had a riddle last night, three in fact, but the one that stood out to me hinged on the English (modern English spelling) of a word. Thst riddle would not even have made sense in most of the languages in our modern world. So, that style of "test the players and ignore the characters" is great for, as I said board games, escape rooms and a whole lot of other entertaining venues.

But, for those who might want a tad bit more "role" in their RPG scenarios, this explanation of and description of the strengths of **actual play** "approach and goal" to highlight its differences is very very telling, very informative and much appreciated, even with the kind of tag-on derision at the end.

Your classic logic puzzle guards at the end provides are another good example of a "player challenge" an escape room, brain teaser board game or perhaps "approach and goal" crowd might find desirable to use for challenges that matter.

In my old ABCD type breakdown, it would likely show up in a D (both character and player challenges required" or maybe a C (either is sufficient) but see, where you portray it mono-focused (DC resolve and player resolve are the same solution) in mine thry would be different. So, for example, there might be a character challenge to get the statues to respond (let's say simplest obvious case a fight challenge that unlocks the info you present, one will lie, one will not, tell us...blahblah.) Obviously, there are a gazillion other character-side challenges that could be used, but z fight is obvious.

But as long as it's all solvable by player side stuff that doesnt bring PC traits even to the level of **worth mentioning in the recap or the usage/design notes** it can certainly be loads of fun, but a challenge with a lot less "role" than some may find to their liking.

"If you’ve figured out a surefire way past an obstacle, there isn’t a need to roll a check"

Unless I misread it, wasnt there a girl in the wings and other clues to keep throwing in there by **deliberate intent of the GM** to keep piling on hints until "they get it"? Even the escape room at the con had a two clue limit and an hour timer.

But, I seem to recall one of the big loud talking points about "approach and goal was the "we dont have DC in mind before approach and even "we dont worry about solutions that auto-succeed before the play" etc.

Here, this example which iirc you lauded, shows in absolute clarity as an example of what "approach and goal " looks like in actual play, chosen to show the differences - there is a right way, planned for in advance, a right approach, that will get to auto-success and where blues and more NPCs will keep popping up until they "get it" and not once did a single character trait deserve even mentioning.

I agree with you, that was a great example - made even greater by its use notes.

 

[Guest 6801328]

"For any followers of this thread who genuinely are interested in how "goal and approach" differs from generic "there is a secret door" or "there is a trap", and not just looking ways to argue, here are some usage notes from the above scenario:"

Just to be clear, were you " not just looking for ways to argue" with the by your own admission derisive roll for every 5' post comment in that post where you put out this example? Or when even now you frame it as against a "generic" scene?

This wasn't mean as a "don't respond if you're just going to argue" caveat; I was really just trying to signal that I'm tired of arguing with those who just feel like arguing. But I do see your point and that was probably an unnecessary precursor.

But about your scene.

It sound an awful lot like the escape room we did a few weeks ago. We, people, find piles of clues. Some have distinct sizes - three numbers on a vase bottom and a three number combo lock -(10 bottle slot shelf, 10 element bar code) - others may be color coded etc.

In that same escape room, we had a number of clues or hints we could ask for and I swear that first room clue was about as on point as your girl safety net was. It was basically pointing us to a place to try to get what we need, much like your girl sent them back to the underhouse.


That escape room we did at the con was fun. It was fun even for me, and I cannot see well so a good chunk of it was not gonna be much for me.

But, the thing that strikes me about your example and now the usage notes bring home (I was wondering) is that *like our escape room** there is no bringing into the mix anything about the characters being played, the game system, be it diceless, be it RPS larping, be it a pamphlet sized character- on- post-card or HERO system 400+ pages of non-setting rules.

The difference between your escape room and this scenario...or one in a similar vein...is exactly what I replied to DM Dave: your escape room really does have one (or several) fixed solutions. The escape room doesn't respond and adapt to creative ideas by the participants. It is a case of mother-may-I.

Tiny but illustrative example: when the player announced that he was putting the bottles in those specific spots, I really wasn't listening to whether he got the right numbers. He may have read his notes wrong, or taken his notes wrong. I didn't care if he clicked the right pixels; that wasn't the point at all. Presumably in your escape room you have to also get the numbers right.

So, it really does not spotlight "goal and approach" vs "character-centered" play in an RPG at all. It seems to be the epitome of "playing me or challenging me, the player" as opposed to "playing Hans or challenging Hans the dwarf".

Honestly, like the escape room, it has a lot more in common to a board game than an RPG.

That's fine, I love them. Have loads of fun with board games, with chess where no dice are needed either and we just move our pieces around.

Or Go, my stone never once is a "person" just a game piece and it's about how well I as a player choose my moves etc. But, every stone is the same. One stone has the same chance as any other st whatever task it is set to do. No reference cards bring up the dwarf stone's masonry or the very perceptive elf'stone.

I recommend every GM of diced games take a turn or two at running diceless systems. It imo really helps refine some techniques.

I am glad your players enjoyed the sample setup you gave them. But if that is your flagship case for what defines and sets apart "approach -and goal" I gotta say it sorta spotlight all that stuff about how it "devalues" all those chargen choices the system being discussed requires (and that by extension a GM using that system required) even tho it seems like the "approach and goal" advocates seem to keep saying they are not devaluing those choices. I mean, how many times have we seen the kind of "oh no, character stats matter... with frequent "we used them passively or..." insert other.

Yet in your whole example and your explicstive usage notes to your your case even more, not one reference to a trait of the PC that I can see. No point where it was important that it was a halfling or a gnome or a wizard or a rogue or... well... anything "character".

It seems 100% play and GM puzzle and you did not se fit to show any point where character mattered to the outcome.

That's very very informative about your presentation of what separates "approach and goal" from the rest **in actual play** and I thank you for that.

By the way, in my non "approach and goal" gameplay, I dont throw random or generic secret doors in either. They require time too. So, it's good that those are not the only alternatives.

It's true that in the parts I described, no special character skills or personality traits were necessary, or even invoked, to put the final pieces of the puzzle together. But those distinctions factored into the story leading up to it. It was the Wizard, who used Investigation and Arcana, who uncovered the clues. And in rescuing the lady they all used both their mechanical abilities and their personalities. Likewise with everything that led to the gift of the wine.

And, as @Bawylie pointed out, if they had "solved" the problem in another way it might have relied more heavily on specific attributes/skills.

It's funny that you compare this approach to a board game, because I feel exactly the same way about the "I roll Perception to look for secret doors" approach. Many posters talk about "challenging the character not the player" but that seems to be a euphemism for "challenging the player to build an effective character and knowing when to invoke abilities." Maybe a card game is a better comparison that a board game, for it seems to be quite analogous to the challenge of building and playing an effective deck in M:tG. Would you call that "challenging the deck not the player"?

Simply having different options, and different strengths and weaknesses, from player to player is not what sets RPGs apart from other games.

 

[Bawylie]

Read the usage notes, then players have zero reason to try Hans strength and a roll, the GM will keep giving them more and more hints until the players "get it" the player-side solution.

Why take a guess (roll mechanics) - there *is* a player side solution?

More to the point, why did I take all those chargrn chouces to get to Investigate 30 as a reasonable option if *me* the player can just solve these with hints that keep coming until we "get it" built into, cooked into the challenge design?

I know (or strongly suspect) the fight scenes are gonna be much more stat driven, not as "find a solution that avoids uncertainty." So I dont need my character to have stats to solve scenes and types where, literally, the GM builds it and plans it to not even need be worth mentioning a single character trait?

Had a riddle last night, three in fact, but the one that stood out to me hinged on the English (modern English spelling) of a word. Thst riddle would not even have made sense in most of the languages in our modern world. So, that style of "test the players and ignore the characters" is great for, as I said board games, escape rooms and a whole lot of other entertaining venues.

But, for those who might want a tad bit more "role" in their RPG scenarios, this explanation of and description of the strengths of **actual play** "approach and goal" to highlight its differences is very very telling, very informative and much appreciated, even with the kind of tag-on derision at the end.

Your classic logic puzzle guards at the end provides are another good example of a "player challenge" an escape room, brain teaser board game or perhaps "approach and goal" crowd might find desirable to use for challenges that matter.

In my old ABCD type breakdown, it would likely show up in a D (both character and player challenges required" or maybe a C (either is sufficient) but see, where you portray it mono-focused (DC resolve and player resolve are the same solution) in mine thry would be different. So, for example, there might be a character challenge to get the statues to respond (let's say simplest obvious case a fight challenge that unlocks the info you present, one will lie, one will not, tell us...blahblah.) Obviously, there are a gazillion other character-side challenges that could be used, but z fight is obvious.

But as long as it's all solvable by player side stuff that doesnt bring PC traits even to the level of **worth mentioning in the recap or the usage/design notes** it can certainly be loads of fun, but a challenge with a lot less "role" than some may find to their liking.

"If you’ve figured out a surefire way past an obstacle, there isn’t a need to roll a check"

Unless I misread it, wasnt there a girl in the wings and other clues to keep throwing in there by **deliberate intent of the GM** to keep piling on hints until "they get it"? Even the escape room at the con had a two clue limit and an hour timer.

But, I seem to recall one of the big loud talking points about "approach and goal was the "we dont have DC in mind before approach and even "we dont worry about solutions that auto-succeed before the play" etc.

Here, this example which iirc you lauded, shows in absolute clarity as an example of what "approach and goal " looks like in actual play, chosen to show the differences - there is a right way, planned for in advance, a right approach, that will get to auto-success and where blues and more NPCs will keep popping up until they "get it" and not once did a single character trait deserve even mentioning.

I agree with you, that was a great example - made even greater by its use notes.

Okay, but how it DID play out was not the only possible way it COULD have played out.

Let’s take a fight scene. Actually wait, let’s find out why it must be a fight scene. A black knight guards a rope bridge and will not permit you to pass unless you pay a toll. What do you do? You have many options, including combat to bypass this knight. Maybe pay the toll, maybe cast fly (uh-oh, a char-gen decision in “goal/approach”), maybe find a different passage, maybe cut the bridge and raft across.

The decisions you make at char-gen give you resources to use in overcoming obstacles. Those resources are not the ONLY thing you might use. To think they are leaves aside the human mind that plays this game. I’ll tell you, when I play with the kids group, they almost exclusively come up with actions and never ask “can I roll my x?” Often I’ll get “Im strong so I’ll push whatever whatever.” Or something like that. For them, at least, play means engaging the scenario, not merely the process of task resolution.

I think only an adult could truly confuse the process of the game for actually playing it. “How do I do this/that?” adults always ask. Don’t worry about - just say what your character wants to do and I’ll worry about the rules.

But I’ll leave that aside. There are obstacles that can be overcome without failure given the right approach, and obstacles that cannot be overcome at all given a wrong approach. If that statement is truly in dispute, then there cannot be any further understanding or discussion.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I agree with you, that was a great example - made even greater by its use notes.

An alternative approach would be: "Hey, it doesn't seem like any character choices mattered here, and that you were determined they would arrive at this one (and only one) solution. Is that the case or is there more you didn't tell us? What would you have done if they just didn't get it?"

That would have been an example of what I meant by "those genuinely interested in discussing this approach." (And, by the way, I'm still just the disciple. @Bawylie and @iserith are the masters.)

Your assumption that you knew the answers to those questions, plus your sarcasm/snark, sorta makes me wish you'd put me back on ignore.

 

[Bawylie]

An alternative approach would be: "Hey, it doesn't seem like any character choices mattered here, and that you were determined they would arrive at this one (and only one) solution. Is that the case or is there more you didn't tell us?"

That would have been an example of what I meant by "those genuinely interested in discussing this approach." (And, by the way, I'm still just the disciple. [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] are the masters.)

Your assumption that you knew the answers to those questions, plus your sarcasm/snark, sorta makes me wish you'd put me back on ignore.

I’m just a dude on the internet, though.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’ll tell you, when I play with the kids group, they almost exclusively come up with actions and never ask “can I roll my x?” Often I’ll get “Im strong so I’ll push whatever whatever.” Or something like that. For them, at least, play means engaging the scenario, not merely the process of task resolution.

I think only an adult could truly confuse the process of the game for actually playing it. “How do I do this/that?” adults always ask. Don’t worry about - just say what your character wants to do and I’ll worry about the rules. .

This is an excellent point, and I would argue it strongly supports my assertion that player’s wanting to roll dice at problems is a learned behavior. Children’s natural inclination is to engage with the fiction first, while adults often take a process-oriented approach. To a kid, you open the door by breaking it down, and maybe you’ll need to roll a die to see if that works. To many adults, you open the door by making a successful strength check, which represents your character’s attempt to break it down. A subtle distinction that makes a world of difference.

 

[Bawylie]

This is an excellent point, and I would argue it strongly supports my assertion that player’s wanting to roll dice at problems is a learned behavior. Children’s natural inclination is to engage with the fiction first, while adults often take a process-oriented approach. To a kid, you open the door by breaking it down, and maybe you’ll need to roll a die to see if that works. To many adults, you open the door by making a successful strength check, which represents your character’s attempt to break it down. A subtle distinction that makes a world of difference.

Well, to be fair it’s not just kids. Complete strangers to the game are about 50/50 IMX. Some are like “how do I...?” But as many are like “ok so I’ll just do ...”

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, to be fair it’s not just kids. Complete strangers to the game are about 50/50 IMX. Some are like “how do I...?” But as many are like “ok so I’ll just do ...”

I know I've told this story (too) but once I was DMing for my 5 year old and his 12 year old cousin. The 12 year old persuaded the 5 year old to sneak ahead to scout things out. After he snuck down the passage to the giant cave, the 12 year old eagerly asked, "What do you see?"

Instead of waiting for me to tell him what he saw, the 5 year old just started making stuff up. It was awesome.