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

[Oofta]

Mostly agreed, except for the "no way of knowing" part. In our games, experienced adventurers have some sense of the consequences of failure in their actions. Might be just a completely vague sense, but it is there.



Same here.



Now, I know you don't play a "gotcha" style as I believe you've stated as much before and you've mentioned that you've been a highly sought after DM for over a decade (paraphrasing here - can't find the actual quote), so that wouldn't jive with "gotcha" DMing. But, if the players don't truly don't know the consequences of their actions - or at least have some sense of them - then one is treading that dangerous ground of being accused of "gotcha" DMing.



Same here.

A player can always ask "can I tell what happens if..." and I will make sure the the scene is clear and possibly give an appropriate skill check which reflects their experience as an adventurer. However, they don't get "spidey sense" unless there's a rules justification for it. I don't do this to play "gotcha", but sometimes the unexpected happens.

Sometimes there's just no way to know what's going to happen if you push that big red button. To me, that's part of the tension, and the drama, of the game.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

@Elfcrusher already answered this before your post:



"If you fail, you fall into the pit". No more detail necessary. The players can be terrified until they make it across safely and then perhaps laugh at the clumsy wizard who screamed as he fell three feet, reveling the illusion.

But it's blindingly obvious if the player is making a skill roll to jump across a pit that they will fall if they fail, there is no need to state it, and quite frankly it's an insult to the player's intelligence to do so.

So there are two possibilities: either the consequence of failure is obvious, or the consequence of failure will only be revealed if it happens. In either case, there is no reason for the DM to say anything until it actually happens.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

A player can always ask "can I tell what happens if..." and I will make sure the the scene is clear and possibly give an appropriate skill check which reflects their experience as an adventurer. However, they don't get "spidey sense" unless there's a rules justification for it. I don't do this to play "gotcha", but sometimes the unexpected happens.

Agreed. All I am saying is that, in our game, the player gets to have a sense of what happens upon failure. Maybe not the full picture, but enough to allow them to determine if they really want to try the action or not. The tension and drama occur when they risk it anyway (which they almost always do) or regroup to figure out another way.

Sometimes there's just no way to know what's going to happen if you push that big red button. To me, that's part of the tension, and the drama, of the game.

Perhaps the "big red button" is just a metaphor, but pushing a button is not in the same ability check category as these other challenges we are describing - smashing down a door, leaping across a pit, or getting across a beam. The PC either pushes the button or they don't. I don't think any style of play is going to makes someone roll for that and there's no need to provide a consequence of failure. What happens after the PC pushes the button certainly could be a mystery assuming, for example, there's no label near the button and/or an NPC who could tell them what happens. But, we're kinda off topic here.

 

[5ekyu]

But it's blindingly obvious if the player is making a skill roll to jump across a pit that they will fall if they fail, there is no need to state it, and quite frankly it's an insult to the player's intelligence to do so.

So there are two possibilities: either the consequence of failure is obvious, or the consequence of failure will only be revealed if it happens. In either case, there is no reason for the DM to say anything until it actually happens.

Not disagreeing with you but... the third possibility is that the consequence is not obvious **but** there are ways the PCs can try and determine it or mitigate it. Some of these efforts may have their own consequences in time, resources, risks of their own (noise, tracks, etc)

Net result is not just two cases but a spectrum, none of which require a GM to Player declaration be explicit, especially by default.

I myself get quickly turned off of RPGs or systems where every resolution brings the GM up front with a sort of negotiation to set the stage for the resolution. The more we need to overtly spend time on out of scene stuff to get thru events, the more I get driven away from a scene and the less I enjoy it. I have left aside more than a few rpg systems for this very reason.

But, this is a statement of preference and experience. Others will vary.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

But it's blindingly obvious if the player is making a skill roll to jump across a pit that they will fall if they fail, there is no need to state it, and quite frankly it's an insult to the player's intelligence to do so.

So there are two possibilities: either the consequence of failure is obvious, or the consequence of failure will only be revealed if it happens. In either case, there is no reason for the DM to say anything until it actually happens.

The scenario is perhaps over-simplified. A consequence of failure might not be blindingly obvious: if you fail, you make it across the pit but hit your head on the low tunnel ceiling taking 1d6 bludgeoning damage. Or if you fail, you make it across just barely and will be hanging onto the lip of the pit. The consequence of failure need not be obvious nor only revealed if it happens.

 

[5ekyu]

I frequently comment that IMO many or most GMs should run a few diceless games. My experience is it helps them get perspective, experiences and techniques that carry over into diced games and may make them better.

That has some applicability here.

I am sure it's very efficient to have before every check a formal statement of success/fail/stakes and/or negotiation to set those. I am sure it after a while becomes quick. For those who value getting a lot done in a session of preventing any lack of clarity, that's great, I am sure.

But, I am also sure that in many cases it risks *becoming* the important part because you are not needing to rely on all that scene description to convey the info, the real info is in the stakes-fu dialog. It's just not as important to create the living and robust scene and depict it in detail when the **actual decisions** will be defined and made in the stakes-fu dialog.

In my diceless games, the systems and play taught me to look at the scene, its setup and descriptions as not just atmosphere but as meaningful. In some games, the emphasis is tone and flavor and using scenery for that. In some the scenery spices up things but is mostly just setting.

In diceless games, choice is the randomizer and the focus on scenery is its meaningful use to shift the outcome. So, you get used to thinking in terms of how scenery matters to the play, how it can be used, etc and especially in how to convey that sufficiently by description. Its important to make the scene and scenery you describe as "vital" to the outcomes.

That followed me into my diced games and so I took how we depict the scene, what the character sees etc as "vital" not just tone or setting.

If instead we all know there will be an explicit stakes-fu dialog where the scenery, scene or choices get boiled down to "the actual facts and choices "buy" the numbers" in a stakes negotiation before a choice is ever made, then that descriptive stuff becomes far less critical. It becomes akin to the campaign speech waiting before the actual policy in writing.

To me, and my players, i have seen things like that detract from the overall enjoyment more than they add.

So we rely on the in-character stuff for the choices, the drama, the expectations and all that scenery and description over more meta-game stakes and solutions.

But that us, not for everyone.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But it's blindingly obvious if the player is making a skill roll to jump across a pit that they will fall if they fail, there is no need to state it, and quite frankly it's an insult to the player's intelligence to do so.

So there are two possibilities: either the consequence of failure is obvious, or the consequence of failure will only be revealed if it happens. In either case, there is no reason for the DM to say anything until it actually happens.

I disagree. The assumed consequence would be falling in the vat, but maybe there's some other complication here. I would think it's unfair to the players to let them think that a failure means falling into the pit, but then when they fail you spring some other surprise consequence on them. So if the consequence is falling, just tell them. As DM Dave said, they don't have to know what's in the pit. Maybe it's illusory? (But if there's some trick it should also be discoverable.)

I dunno, I just think it's more suspenseful and immersive (in the sense of emotional investment, not in the "perfect simulation" sense) to drop ominous hints. Done right it both raises the dramatic tension and avoids players feeling like they've been gotcha'd.

 

[Oofta]

Agreed. All I am saying is that, in our game, the player gets to have a sense of what happens upon failure. Maybe not the full picture, but enough to allow them to determine if they really want to try the action or not. The tension and drama occur when they risk it anyway (which they almost always do) or regroup to figure out another way.



Perhaps the "big red button" is just a metaphor, but pushing a button is not in the same ability check category as these other challenges we are describing - smashing down a door, leaping across a pit, or getting across a beam. The PC either pushes the button or they don't. I don't think any style of play is going to makes someone roll for that and there's no need to provide a consequence of failure. What happens after the PC pushes the button certainly could be a mystery assuming, for example, there's no label near the button and/or an NPC who could tell them what happens. But, we're kinda off topic here.

Yeah maybe I should have put [METAPHOR]big red button[/METAPHOR].

In a lot of my campaigns there are frequently numerous [METAPHOR]big red buttons[/METAPHOR], and not just related to skill challenges. Whom do you trust? What do you believe when there's conflicting evidence? Who's really behind the metaphorical curtain pulling the levers?

But it really depends on the campaign and the players. Basically it's just one technique I try to use to make the game fun for everyone.

As far as knowing all possible consequences even though my PC would not, no thanks. Just not the kind of game I would want to play.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I disagree. The assumed consequence would be falling in the vat, but maybe there's some other complication here. I would think it's unfair to the players to let them think that a failure means falling into the pit, but then when they fail you spring some other surprise consequence on them. So if the consequence is falling, just tell them. As DM Dave said, they don't have to know what's in the pit. Maybe it's illusory? (But if there's some trick it should also be discoverable.)

I dunno, I just think it's more suspenseful and immersive (in the sense of emotional investment, not in the "perfect simulation" sense) to drop ominous hints. Done right it both raises the dramatic tension and avoids players feeling like they've been gotcha'd.

That's the point of not telling them: let them assume. If they assumed wrong, that's their fault. Life aint predictable, and sometimes failing might lead to a better outcome than success.

The only exception is when something would be apparent to the characters that might not be apparent to the players. For example a low overhead beam. Even then, only tell them what their characters notice, not the outcome.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because it's frequently not apparent.

Consider this: a pit appears bottomless, but is actually an illusion - it's really on 3 feet deep. What do you do, tell them the truth: "if you fail this roll nothing bad will happen", blatantly lie to them "you will fall to your death", or tell them nothing, thus letting them know there is something fishy about the pit, because you normally tell them what will happen?

I don’t call for a roll, because there is no consequence for failure.