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

[iserith]

We've had this conversation.

5e is written for very new gamers who have little to no gaming experience.

A baseless assertion.

As such, it is written to provide a specific experience for a specific audience. Since I am neither a new gamer nor someone with little to no gaming experience, much of what they say doesn't really apply to me.

Sounds like a post-hoc justification for not bothering to read the rules and for playing the game as if it's some other game. Which you're free to do. You don't need to make baseless assertions to justify it though.

They're all advice. However, some advice looks a lot more like a rule - longswords do d8 damage, than others.

Advice, even when the rules refer to themselves as rules? Okay.

Funny how 4e was crucified for being too limited in playstyle and trying to force gamers into specific paths, yet, now, 5e is being lauded for doing exactly the same thing.

I neither crucify nor laud.

 

[iserith]

QFT. One has to wonder why [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has repeatedly, I believe I counted what 8 times in 10 posts, insisted that he is only doing what the rules state and if we would just follow the rules, we'd have a better time, if, at the same time, he agrees that the rules are simply guidelines.

No one has to wonder anything. My words are plain and consistent.

I don't agree that the rules are guidelines. I think they are rules, especially the ones that say they are rules. They tell us how the game is meant to be played. Not surprisingly, the game runs smoothly when we do since the game is designed reasonably well. Whether that game experience is enjoyable is a different issue as that is a matter of taste. The rules can also be ignored or changed if they don't produce a desirable game experience. The rules even tell us so.

When I'm asked where I get all these strange ideas like only DMs calling for rolls, players describing what they want to do, and the necessity of meaningful consequences for failure before dice are thrown, I point to the rules because that's the truth. And for some reason it seems to confound about a half-dozen vocal posters on these forums.

Perhaps the wondering should be turned inward as to why.

 

[pemerton]

You are going to have to explain this to me.

OK, but I'll start a new thread in General, as it's not a specifically D&D point, is not really about truth-telling or lying NPCs, and won't be terribly brief.

 

[Charlaquin]

Funny how 4e was crucified for being too limited in playstyle and trying to force gamers into specific paths, yet, now, 5e is being lauded for doing exactly the same thing.

For one thing, those people were in the wrong to crucify 4e for being too limited in playstyle. Its rules, just like 5e's were designed to create a particular play experience, but could be ignored if they did not suit the preferences of the group playing it. For another, I don't see anyone lauding 5e for being limited in playstyle. People are expressing their enjoyment of the play experience 5e's rules create, and pointing to those rules when asked why we run the game the way we do.

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] (...) insisted that he is only doing what the rules state and if we would just follow the rules, we'd have a better time

Citation needed.

 

[Hussar]

For one thing, those people were in the wrong to crucify 4e for being too limited in playstyle. Its rules, just like 5e's were designed to create a particular play experience, but could be ignored if they did not suit the preferences of the group playing it. For another, I don't see anyone lauding 5e for being limited in playstyle. People are expressing their enjoyment of the play experience 5e's rules create, and pointing to those rules when asked why we run the game the way we do.


Citation needed.

Nope. Don't need a citation. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] above actually AGREES with what I said. He's made no bones about it.

When I'm asked where I get all these strange ideas like only DMs calling for rolls, players describing what they want to do, and the necessity of meaningful consequences for failure before dice are thrown, I point to the rules because that's the truth. And for some reason it seems to confound about a half-dozen vocal posters on these forums.

Umm, who's asking that? After this long and that many repetitions, we understand where you're getting the ideas from.

But, as far as the rules being written for newbies, that's hardly baseless is it? Why would you presume otherwise? 5e is very much written for new gamers. That's the whole point of 5e, to attract new gamers or pick up lapsed ones. What it's not written for is folks like us who have played for decades. Otherwise, if it was, it wouldn't have to spend considerable page count explaining basic notions like how to roll dice and the like.

In any case, I think we're at what is known as an imp arse. So, I'll go back to lurking for a few dozen more pages and catch up with this once it's moved onto something more interesting than pedantic wankery over "what is a rule".

 

[Charlaquin]

Nope. Don't need a citation. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] above actually AGREES with what I said. He's made no bones about it.

I see nothing in that post that asserts you'd have a better time if you followed the rules. On the contrary, he specifically said that whether the game experience that following the rules leads to is enjoyable or not is a matter of taste. See:

Whether that game experience is enjoyable is a different issue as that is a matter of taste. The rules can also be ignored or changed if they don't produce a desirable game experience. The rules even tell us so.

Seems like people are reading what they want to out of iserith's posts in order to vilify his position, instead of reading what his posts actually say.

 

[iserith]

Nope. Don't need a citation. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] above actually AGREES with what I said. He's made no bones about it.

I can't possibly refute all the bogus claims you make, not with only 24 hours in the day. So I pick the ones that are more interesting. This claim wasn't interesting, but since you seem to think that a lack of refutation is the same as agreement (which is a very odd conclusion), I guess I'll have to say something:

I don't agree with your characterization. I don't say that the game is better if you follow the rules. I do say it runs smoother because you're not working at cross-purposes to the game's design. But whether the game experience is better is in the eye of the beholder. You don't appear to enjoy the game experience that D&D 5e's rules support, though it's not clear you've every played in such a game or even understand it. And that's okay. It doesn't affect me at all.

Umm, who's asking that? After this long and that many repetitions, we understand where you're getting the ideas from.

That doesn't appear to be the case with others who can't figure out why I mention the rules.

But, as far as the rules being written for newbies, that's hardly baseless is it? Why would you presume otherwise? 5e is very much written for new gamers. That's the whole point of 5e, to attract new gamers or pick up lapsed ones. What it's not written for is folks like us who have played for decades. Otherwise, if it was, it wouldn't have to spend considerable page count explaining basic notions like how to roll dice and the like.

I think the safe assumption is that the rules were written for anybody who wants to play D&D 5e, being a manual on how to play the game and all. So that includes novice and experienced gamers alike.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

(And it's odd that you support the Everett hypothesis, because that contradicts "fundamental randomness of the universe.")

I didn't say I specifically supported the Everett hypothesis - I was a professional scientist, they paid me to come up with my own ideas!

Whist the multiverse might not be random, since every potential outcome "exists" in some sense, which branch of the multiverse the observer finds themselves in when they make an observation is.

 

[Hussar]

I can't possibly refute all the bogus claims you make, not with only 24 hours in the day. So I pick the ones that are more interesting. This claim wasn't interesting, but since you seem to think that a lack of refutation is the same as agreement (which is a very odd conclusion), I guess I'll have to say something:

I don't agree with your characterization. I don't say that the game is better if you follow the rules. I do say it runs smoother because you're not working at cross-purposes to the game's design. But whether the game experience is better is in the eye of the beholder. You don't appear to enjoy the game experience that D&D 5e's rules support, though it's not clear you've every played in such a game or even understand it. And that's okay. It doesn't affect me at all.

Oh good grief. You're splitting the hair between "better" and "smoother"? Seriously? And then double down by saying that by not following the rules I'm "working at cross-purposes to the game's design"? Come on, for someone complaining about being misrepresented, that's about as pedantic as it gets.

And it's hardly vilifying is it? That's pretty strong. I'm not vilifying anyone. Simply disagreeing.

Of course the implication that my game runs less smoothly (or less well in plain English) because I do not play your way is pretty clear.

See, the problem is, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], you're presuming that the rules ONLY support one experience. That unless I play exactly the way you do, I cannot understand it, nor have I apparently ever played that way. Despite repeatedly being told that I have, in fact, played the way you play, done it for years in fact, and didn't enjoy it, I'm apparently unable to understand what you are saying.

Or, to put it another way, only people who agree with you apparently understand what you are doing. That's pretty convenient no?

That doesn't appear to be the case with others who can't figure out why I mention the rules.



I think the safe assumption is that the rules were written for anybody who wants to play D&D 5e, being a manual on how to play the game and all. So that includes novice and experienced gamers alike.

Whereas I look at the fact that a very large chunk of the books are written very much for those with little or no gaming experience means that there are large chunks of the book that I can safely ignore or change. Such as this clear delineation between player and DM roles. The books are chock a block with it. It's simply a different interpretation that yours [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]. Which leads us to treating the books and the guidelines/rules contained therein very differently.

 

[iserith]

Oh good grief. You're splitting the hair between "better" and "smoother"? Seriously? And then double down by saying that by not following the rules I'm "working at cross-purposes to the game's design"? Come on, for someone complaining about being misrepresented, that's about as pedantic as it gets.

And it's hardly vilifying is it? That's pretty strong. I'm not vilifying anyone. Simply disagreeing.

Of course the implication that my game runs less smoothly (or less well in plain English) because I do not play your way is pretty clear.

See, the problem is, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], you're presuming that the rules ONLY support one experience. That unless I play exactly the way you do, I cannot understand it, nor have I apparently ever played that way. Despite repeatedly being told that I have, in fact, played the way you play, done it for years in fact, and didn't enjoy it, I'm apparently unable to understand what you are saying.

Or, to put it another way, only people who agree with you apparently understand what you are doing. That's pretty convenient no?

It's rather inconvenient really, given that I may likely have more productive conversations about the game if you actually were familiar with the way some of us play. You and others have consistently shown that you do not understand it in this thread despite repeated, patient attempts to explain it to you (and the fact that it is written plain as day in the rules). Your own words lead us to believe you have no idea what we're talking about.

Whereas I look at the fact that a very large chunk of the books are written very much for those with little or no gaming experience means that there are large chunks of the book that I can safely ignore or change. Such as this clear delineation between player and DM roles. The books are chock a block with it. It's simply a different interpretation that yours [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]. Which leads us to treating the books and the guidelines/rules contained therein very differently.

Yes, it's quite clear that you ignored a lot of the rules.