Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 9833178" data-attributes="member: 59848">Sure, but I also imagine we've all taken tests that we were confident about and ended up getting a poor grade. Or for sure knew that someone we cared about returned our feelings, only to learn they couldn't feel more differently. The system that I proposed is not used universally. But in matters of knowledge, perspective, insight, and research, where there is room to be confidently wrong, I've found it to be a helpful mechanic.How often do your players ask, "Can I roll insight to get a sense of their motivations/trustworthiness?" Because mine do that a good amount. Sure, it is completely valid to let them roll openly and tell them straight. But I think it is equally reasonable to let them wonder in the same way their characters might wonder. They may get a sense about the NPC and be pretty confident about their assessment, but that doesn't mean they are right.I disagree. A character may not be actively doing something. But that doesn't mean the player isn't actively wondering about something. Insight as a great example of something that is done passively, but can be actively requested for by a player. Or as a DM, I can say, "Hey, roll insight." Then they get information based on the roll and what might be reasonable given the context, but the player gets to determine how they use it without necessarily having a metagame sense of the accuracy of the information.My players do this too. I'm not saying it's wrong. But it can also break immersion, and sometimes breaking immersion can be jarring or undesirable. I tend to like my games to be as immersive as possible, and my players tend to enjoy it too.</blockquote>

Verification