Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Chris Perkins doesn't use Passive Insight
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5729506" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>Job interviewers will be using "active" insight, sure - but passive insight works just the same. Have you really never anticipated a "birthday surprise" because freinds and/or family were "acting funny"? An off-the-cuff remark might be difficult to spot as deliberate deception - but such a remark is not that likely to be a deliberate deception in the first place.</p><p></p><p>If you are telling a falsehood you will give tells, no matter how "immersed" you are. If the falsehood is a game feature where the NPC believes the false information, you will just be giving off false tells. If you normally make NPC lying blatantly obvious, your players might read the tell as meaning exactly what it does mean - or they might just be confused, or they might miss the tells entirely. None of that seems that helpful to game play, to me.</p><p></p><p>As far as "challenging the player, not the character", I think this is a false dichotomy. The character does not exist; the player is the one deploying the character's skills and abilities, so testing the character's abilities when they are deployed by the player is just a specific manner of challenging the player.</p><p></p><p>I don't know what KM meant, but it seems to me that character building is only one place that players use strategy. They also use considerable strategy in our games when deploying the skills and abilities their characters have. The out of combat systems could be better designed to support this, it's true, but they still manage it to a degree.</p><p></p><p>Ah, now, here I'll agree with S'mon; you clearly have not played Monopoly seriously. I don't know which properties are orange in your local version of the game, but the orange properties in the UK version are the best on the board. They are not the most expensive; they are the ones around 6-8 spaces (i.e. an average 2d6 roll) away from "Jail". And purchasing individual properties in Monopoly means nothing - if you are playing to win you <em><strong>must</strong></em> get a set and build houses and hotels on them. This is seldom achieved through luck alone; you have to beg, steal, borrow and trade for them.</p><p></p><p>The problem I have with these sorts of effects is precisely the problem you seem to have with player blarney giving "auto-success" in social challenges. They are open to interpretation, which means it becomes a game of swinging your desired interpretation by the DM. I agree that more "game" depth would be a benefit for non-combat challenges, but I want to see the resultant game be more clearly defined, similar to the way that 4E combat is clearly defined.</p><p></p><p>For me, the style of roleplaying best supported by D&D is player-challenging "boardgame" type challenges overlaid on a "substrate" of a game world political-strategic situation. Games within a grand game, if you like. The players play these layered games through the agency of their characters, whom they imbue with personality and goals as they see fit in the pursuit of that play. If real-life interpersonal competitions or favour-seeking creep into that play, my experience is that it is counterproductive and distracting. As a result, "open" systems are fine if we are seeking to simply explore an alien world collaboratively, but are unhelpful if we are playing for some (lightly) competitive challenge busting.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5729506, member: 27160"] Job interviewers will be using "active" insight, sure - but passive insight works just the same. Have you really never anticipated a "birthday surprise" because freinds and/or family were "acting funny"? An off-the-cuff remark might be difficult to spot as deliberate deception - but such a remark is not that likely to be a deliberate deception in the first place. If you are telling a falsehood you will give tells, no matter how "immersed" you are. If the falsehood is a game feature where the NPC believes the false information, you will just be giving off false tells. If you normally make NPC lying blatantly obvious, your players might read the tell as meaning exactly what it does mean - or they might just be confused, or they might miss the tells entirely. None of that seems that helpful to game play, to me. As far as "challenging the player, not the character", I think this is a false dichotomy. The character does not exist; the player is the one deploying the character's skills and abilities, so testing the character's abilities when they are deployed by the player is just a specific manner of challenging the player. I don't know what KM meant, but it seems to me that character building is only one place that players use strategy. They also use considerable strategy in our games when deploying the skills and abilities their characters have. The out of combat systems could be better designed to support this, it's true, but they still manage it to a degree. Ah, now, here I'll agree with S'mon; you clearly have not played Monopoly seriously. I don't know which properties are orange in your local version of the game, but the orange properties in the UK version are the best on the board. They are not the most expensive; they are the ones around 6-8 spaces (i.e. an average 2d6 roll) away from "Jail". And purchasing individual properties in Monopoly means nothing - if you are playing to win you [I][B]must[/B][/I] get a set and build houses and hotels on them. This is seldom achieved through luck alone; you have to beg, steal, borrow and trade for them. The problem I have with these sorts of effects is precisely the problem you seem to have with player blarney giving "auto-success" in social challenges. They are open to interpretation, which means it becomes a game of swinging your desired interpretation by the DM. I agree that more "game" depth would be a benefit for non-combat challenges, but I want to see the resultant game be more clearly defined, similar to the way that 4E combat is clearly defined. For me, the style of roleplaying best supported by D&D is player-challenging "boardgame" type challenges overlaid on a "substrate" of a game world political-strategic situation. Games within a grand game, if you like. The players play these layered games through the agency of their characters, whom they imbue with personality and goals as they see fit in the pursuit of that play. If real-life interpersonal competitions or favour-seeking creep into that play, my experience is that it is counterproductive and distracting. As a result, "open" systems are fine if we are seeking to simply explore an alien world collaboratively, but are unhelpful if we are playing for some (lightly) competitive challenge busting. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Chris Perkins doesn't use Passive Insight
Top