Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7989623" data-attributes="member: 6801845">Not to start an unrelated war (because I don't think there's any one true way) but ...There are times when I will allow for a check when I know there is no chance of success or failure because if I don't I am effectively giving information I may not want to give out.If the players suspect that a shop keeper is lying but is actually telling the truth, I'm not going to stop them from getting an insight check if they want one.If I give them one and they get a low roll they are still uncertain.&nbsp; If they roll high they think he's probably telling the truth - but then again insight isn't lie detection.The only way they'll know for certain the shopkeeper is telling the truth is if I don't allow an insight check or don't ask for one when I normally would.So that's my logic and reasoning for having players roll a check when I know what the result will be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 7989623, member: 6801845"] Not to start an unrelated war (because I don't think there's any one true way) but ... There are times when I will allow for a check when I know there is no chance of success or failure because if I don't I am effectively giving information I may not want to give out. If the players suspect that a shop keeper is lying but is actually telling the truth, I'm not going to stop them from getting an insight check if they want one. If I give them one and they get a low roll they are still uncertain. If they roll high they think he's probably telling the truth - but then again insight isn't lie detection. The only way they'll know for certain the shopkeeper is telling the truth is if I don't allow an insight check or don't ask for one when I normally would. So that's my logic and reasoning for having players roll a check when I know what the result will be. [/QUOTE]

Verification