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

[Oofta]

I'm not sure simulation even ranks second for me. (Although, like everybody else, there are places where a lack of realism gets under my skin.)

But, yes, between those two things that's the order.

I just can't muster any outrage over, for example, martial abilities being 1/day. Why is it 1/day? Game balance. How do you 'explain' it? That was the only time that day that the hero could muster sufficient ferocity. Where's the problem?

I never said it was a particularly good set of rules for simulation of a fantasy world. Obviously things have to be simplified to work as a game, and D&D has always been more "action movie" reality than the real thing.

It's just the most enjoyable set of rules I've used for my goal of simulating a fantasy world.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

Here’s my thing, though. The only way it’s unreasonable for the PC to know that the lighting fixture isn’t able to support their weight is if the DM makes it so. If you don’t think the game is improved by ensuring that the players always know the consequences their actions could have going in, that’s fine, we can agree to disagree about that. But since you create the world “there’s no way the character could know that” carries an implicit “because I made it that way.”


Yeah, I mean I wouldn’t have whether or not the chandelier falls be dependent on the result of the player’s check in D&D either. But some folks would, and I might in a system like Dumgeon World. It’s a difference of baseline assumptions about the roles of GMs, players, and the dice.

Whereas I would say that it's only reasonable for the chandelier to not be able to bear the weight of someone is if it's obviously not designed to hold weight or there's a structural deficiency.

If it's the former I haven't described it with enough detail and I'll warn the player. If it's the latter, I've been broadcasting the general state of the building. Whether this particular fixture is on the verge of collapse becomes a judgement call on the side of the player of whether they want to risk it.

On a related note if the player is just adding a feature to the room that's fine, I allow that on a fairly regular basis. But it's still going to follow the same rules. I hadn't thought about there being a chandelier (or any other fixture)? Fine. Who built the structure, what state is it in.

I don't coddle my players. If they want to take a risk, they take the risk. If they're in a building with obvious signs of disrepair and wood rot and they want to swing from the chandelier I shouldn't need to spell out the fact that it may not hold. It should be obvious. If I think it may not be I'll give them an appropriate check.

People do risky things all the time not knowing all possible consequences or even the chance of failure. I see no reason to change that for PCs.

 

[Oofta]

Good conversation; let me tell ya, there are places where people can't even believe that you can discuss this issue since, you know, "realism" can never be truly defined.

But yeah, fun and enjoyment > realism (IMO).



The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.

Well, I do base my campaigns on action movie realism, not reality. But yeah, end of the day I want to be able to envision my PC as the protagonist in a good book or movie. On the other hand a simulation that realistically portrayed dying from and infected "flesh wound" a week after your combat wouldn't be fun.

Or to put it another way, having a consistent logical world that at a high level works like what I would expect to read in a novel/movie is what makes the game enjoyable for me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I started writing a long post on this topic, inspired by some of the comments/ideas here, but decided it's really a fork in the discussion so started a new thread. And it's a game, too!

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ons-to-common-obstacles&p=7597513#post7597513

 

[Ovinomancer]

Good conversation; let me tell ya, there are places where people can't even believe that you can discuss this issue since, you know, "realism" can never be truly defined.

But yeah, fun and enjoyment > realism (IMO).



The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.

Oh, good grief. This childish sniping across multiple threads is, well, childish.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Good conversation; let me tell ya, there are places where people can't even believe that you can discuss this issue since, you know, "realism" can never be truly defined.

Sure it can. It'd be a game that sucked every bit as much as RL.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

LOL.

Accountants and Actuaries, FTW!

It's almost as if these conversations have occurred, repeatedly, for decades ...

Papers & Paychecks had been a punchline since the 1e DMG!