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

[Hussar]

only observing that sometimes running the game in a way that runs contrary to its design can make for a less smoothly running game

Fair enough. I can also make the observation that running the game in the way that the game suggests can make for a less smoothly running game.

I'd say it depends mostly on the group and the person running the game.

But, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], don't you find it strange that the only people who apparently understand the way you run the games are also the people that agree with you? That everyone who disagrees with you apparently just doesn't understand what you're doing? Something to cogitate on since we're all about that self reflection right?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Oh good grief. You're splitting the hair between "better" and "smoother"? Seriously?

Also between the /game/ being better and the experience of running it smoother. The latter is less a claim of quality about the game itself.

Though I would go right ahead and say that 5e is a better game if run the 'right' way by the right DM.
with iserith being a pretty fair example. Just needs a bit more shameless illusionism.

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.

Because it's just fun to type silliness like this: no, it's by following the rules that you're working at cross purposes to the game's rules which rule that the rules should be over-ruled selectively whenever ruling with the rules would detract from the rule of the DM.

Or something like that.

Yeah, I'm joking, but I'm also serious. The brilliance of DM Empowerment is that you can't take refuge in "just play'n by the rules," you have a greater responsibility than that as DM.

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.

Well, iff you're running 5e (or TSR era D&D), and iff you're insisting on playing by natural-language rules as if they were perfectly clear unambiguous precise-jargon rules, your experience may be less smooth than it could be if you just circular-filed the book and did whatever you wanted. Or ran something else. Which amounts to the same thing, really.

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.

Of course the rules support many sorts of experiences - whatever sort of experiences /you/ support while ignoring the bits of the rules that don't support that experience are perforce, supported.

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.

Not a bad way to write the books when you have tons of new people entering the hobby through your flagship offering. I'd say you can safely ignore or change anything between the covers, but, really, feel free to change/ignore the covers, too.

It seems odd to me to call rules that refer to themselves as "rules" advice. Even rules about how to conduct the game outside of the rules of the game are called "table rules."

Ultimately the GM in any RPG can change/overrule/ignore the rules of the game he's running. Even if that game /does/ try to present itself as a tense set of immutable rules.

5e does not choose to so present itself.

So is that a "yes" or a "no" on finding value in seeing one's own inconsistencies and contradictions?

It is and it isn't.

I wouldn't call myself "strict." I change rules regularly to suit the campaign. What I don't change are the fundamental elements such as how to play the game and the adjudication process.

If you strictly follow the rules of a game written in natural language, that empowers the DM, /you're not following the rules at all/. OTOH, if you constantly subordinate the rules to your own judgement, you're totally following them.

I also make no judgment as to how well your game runs, having never seen it firsthand, only observing that sometimes running the game in a way that runs contrary to its design can make for a less smoothly running game. We see this sort of thing reported on the forums all the time.

I'll admit that the first few times I ran 5e, I ran it as 'by the book' as possible in every detail, and things got a lot better when I got over that impulse.


Another way to look at it. The rules of the game exist on more than one level. The general order/philosophy of play is an over-arching rule that offers a helpful guideline to the DM. The details - bonuses, skills, monster stat blocks, etc, etc, etc - are on another level. Following the higher-level rule includes making judgements about and changing/ignoring/modding/over-ruling/tweaking the lower-level details.

…

There must be some reasonable way to state this that's obvious to folks that didn't grok DMing back in the day.

 

[iserith]

Fair enough. I can also make the observation that running the game in the way that the game suggests can make for a less smoothly running game.

I'd say it depends mostly on the group and the person running the game.

But, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], don't you find it strange that the only people who apparently understand the way you run the games are also the people that agree with you? That everyone who disagrees with you apparently just doesn't understand what you're doing? Something to cogitate on since we're all about that self reflection right?

No, I don't find it strange since we have a record of the words those people used that show they do not understand. Based on those words, as best as I can figure, some folks really don't like a game that I'm not running.

 

[iserith]

Ultimately the GM in any RPG can change/overrule/ignore the rules of the game he's running. Even if that game /does/ try to present itself as a tense set of immutable rules.

I've said nothing to the contrary.

5e does not choose to so present itself.

That is true.

So is that a "yes" or a "no" on finding value in seeing one's own inconsistencies and contradictions?

That question wasn't directed at you and your answer makes little sense to me.

If you strictly follow the rules of a game written in natural language, that empowers the DM, /you're not following the rules at all/. OTOH, if you constantly subordinate the rules to your own judgement, you're totally following them.

I advocate running the game by its rules which includes the DM deciding when the rules come into play to resolve uncertainty.

I'll admit that the first few times I ran 5e, I ran it as 'by the book' as possible in every detail, and things got a lot better when I got over that impulse.

Another way to look at it. The rules of the game exist on more than one level. The general order/philosophy of play is an over-arching rule that offers a helpful guideline to the DM. The details - bonuses, skills, monster stat blocks, etc, etc, etc - are on another level. Following the higher-level rule includes making judgements about and changing/ignoring/modding/over-ruling/tweaking the lower-level details.

…

There must be some reasonable way to state this that's obvious to folks that didn't grok DMing back in the day.

I would say "How to Play" and the DM's adjudication process are the fundamental aspects of the game and it is tinkered with at your game's peril. The rest of the rules come into play at the DM's discretion (so say the rules).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've said nothing to the contrary.
That is true.
That question wasn't directed at you and your answer makes little sense to me.

Yeah, we may be in violent agreement on some points here. (The last one was my un-patented lame attempt at humor.)

I advocate running the game by its rules which includes the DM deciding when the rules come into play to resolve uncertainty. I would say "How to Play" and the DM's adjudication process are the fundamental aspects of the game and it is tinkered with at your game's peril. The rest of the rules come into play at the DM's discretion (so say the rules).

That sure sounds clear & reasonable, to me.


I find it too much fun to shout the superficial contradictions.
I should probably just shut up.

 

[pemerton]

You'll have to include a link at some point, I'm having a hard enough time just keeping up with this thread.

Sorry about that, here's the link. You might also have got a quote notification.

 

[Charlaquin]

Fair enough. I can also make the observation that running the game in the way that the game suggests can make for a less smoothly running game.

I'd say it depends mostly on the group and the person running the game.

But, @iserith, don't you find it strange that the only people who apparently understand the way you run the games are also the people that agree with you? That everyone who disagrees with you apparently just doesn't understand what you're doing? Something to cogitate on since we're all about that self reflection right?

I mean... One possible explanation of this phenomenon might be that people who do understand the way we run the game tend to like it. It's a bit like saying "Don't you think it's a little odd that everyone who says they like sushi seem to have tried authentically-made sushi?" No, I don't find that odd, honestly. Authentically made sushi is very good. Obviously it's not to everyone's tastes, and there certainly are some folks who have tried it and still didn't like it, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not the least bit surprising to me that most people who have tried it have liked it, and most people who are convinced they won't like it based on their experience with cheap sushi haven't tried it.

 

[Oofta]

I mean... One possible explanation of this phenomenon might be that people who do understand the way we run the game tend to like it. It's a bit like saying "Don't you think it's a little odd that everyone who says they like sushi seem to have tried authentically-made sushi?" No, I don't find that odd, honestly. Authentically made sushi is very good. Obviously it's not to everyone's tastes, and there certainly are some folks who have tried it and still didn't like it, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not the least bit surprising to me that most people who have tried it have liked it, and most people who are convinced they won't like it based on their experience with cheap sushi haven't tried it.

Or ... people understand, have played that way and choose not to be that picky about how people declare what they are doing. Oh, and sushi is still just raw fish despite all the hype.

 

[Charlaquin]

Or ... people understand, have played that way and choose not to be that picky about how people declare what they are doing.

Certainly. Although, this explanation would fail to account for the fact that a majority of the people who claim to have played that way and chosen not to be picky about how people declare what they are doing also display several fundamental misunderstandings of the playstyle they claim to have tried.

Oh, and sushi is still just raw fish despite all the hype.

It's fish (sometimes raw, but often cooked), rice, nori, and various vegetables.

 

[Oofta]

Certainly. Although, this explanation would fail to account for the fact that a majority of the people who claim to have played that way and chosen not to be picky about how people declare what they are doing also display several fundamental misunderstandings of the playstyle they claim to have tried.

What don't I understand?
- Players should not declare use of skills, the DM calls for skills if necessary.
-There should never be a skill check unless there is a significant penalty for failure.
-The DM should never call for (or allow a player to ask for) a skill check if there is no chance of failure (i.e. no insight check if the NPC is telling the truth like the OP).
-Players should always avoid a skill check if possible, which includes describing for example how they disarm a trap.
-Traps and challenges should be broadcast so that they are obvious.

I'm not saying everyone runs things exactly like that, but that's the gist. Or did I miss something?

It's fish (sometimes raw, but often cooked), rice, nori, and various vegetables.

And, in the US anyway served with artificially colored green horseradish that's been mislabeled 'wasabi'. What's your point?