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 LIVE! 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="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5730597" data-attributes="member: 61155"><p>So, just to be clear... your idea is that it is acceptable for someone to want to play a strong barbarian, an intelligent wizard, or a wise cleric, and have the game mechanically support their ability to do so, but if they want to play a character who is a skilled investigator, you do not feel that is acceptable, and instead is something that should be driven entirely by player skill, with no recourse to character skill?</p><p> </p><p>Again, I suppose there is an approach that style can work for. For myself, I'm not a huge fan of it - just as, if I am playing a thief who is very skilled at finding and disabling traps, it is frustrating when a DM has my character trigger the traps anyway because I didn't describe properly <em>how </em>I was disabling the traps. </p><p> </p><p>Part of the point of playing a character is that the character can do things that a player, in real life, cannot. One doesn't expect a fighter's player to actually be able to swing a sword or bash through a doorway - or a wizard's player to actually be able to hurl lightning! So the approach of expecting the thief's player to actually be the one figuring out how to disable traps (with no benefit from their character's skills), or an investigator's player to actually be able to tell when the DM is lying (with no benefits from their character's skills)... well, it seems an unbalanced style of play. At least, in my opinion. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I... I don't think that is remotely true. </p><p> </p><p>When someone, in real life, actively tries to decieve someone else, there are often all sorts of cues that can give the heads-up that something is off. Now, many folks might be good at, and be able to cover up those elements. </p><p> </p><p>Which we have a way to mechanically represent in the game, in the form of a Bluff check. </p><p> </p><p>The idea that a bumbling idiot can walk up to a group of PCs and tell the exact same lie as a silver-tongued con man, and is <em>exactly as effective at doing so</em> if the DM doesn't think the PCs have any reason to be suspicious... now <em>that</em> pretty severely breaks my suspension of disbelief. </p><p> </p><p>Now, I suppose it does depend on what you mean by PCs having reason to be suspicious. You mention that an unskilled liar can still convince PCs of something they have no reason to doubt. But how often does that actually come up? </p><p> </p><p>How often does a PC ask an NPC the time, and the NPC deliberately tell them a slightly different time for little to no reason? </p><p> </p><p>Almost any deception I can see cropping up for the party will often be of much more significance, and I don't see any reason in those situations to simply assume that PCs accept everything as truth, despite some of those PCs being <em>game-mechanically good </em>at telling when someone is lying to them. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Well, yes. That's what I said in my very next statement - that there are times and places where you can handwave attack rolls. </p><p> </p><p>But an NPC trying to deceive a PC, and the PC having some chance of detecting it, is not some rare scenario akin to a PC attacking a sleeping foe. It is the social equivalent of a direct combat itself. </p><p> </p><p>Like I said, what are some examples of what you are referring to? If you are truly talking about handwaving bluff checks only in inconsequential or meaningless situations (such as NPCs telling PCs a slightly different time), that's probably fine. But you make it sound like you are applying these rules to pretty much all bluff checks, unless you as the DM decide the PCs have reason to be suspicious and are magnanimous enough to let their PCs' skills be relevant. </p><p> </p><p>Now, this is a decision, as a DM, you have the right to make. You can totally run things this way. But it absolutely is not RAW, nor do I think it accurately resembles reality, nor do I think it is a fair way to handle the skills and abilities a player has invested in their character. </p><p> </p><p>Now, there may still be reasons to choose to run it the way you desire, and there can absolutely be benefits to valuing player skill over character skill. But you should at least acknowledge the truth of what you are doing, and it most definitely is not adhering to the rules themselves, nor is this in any way a more accurate reflection of how deceit works in reality.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MrMyth, post: 5730597, member: 61155"] So, just to be clear... your idea is that it is acceptable for someone to want to play a strong barbarian, an intelligent wizard, or a wise cleric, and have the game mechanically support their ability to do so, but if they want to play a character who is a skilled investigator, you do not feel that is acceptable, and instead is something that should be driven entirely by player skill, with no recourse to character skill? Again, I suppose there is an approach that style can work for. For myself, I'm not a huge fan of it - just as, if I am playing a thief who is very skilled at finding and disabling traps, it is frustrating when a DM has my character trigger the traps anyway because I didn't describe properly [I]how [/I]I was disabling the traps. Part of the point of playing a character is that the character can do things that a player, in real life, cannot. One doesn't expect a fighter's player to actually be able to swing a sword or bash through a doorway - or a wizard's player to actually be able to hurl lightning! So the approach of expecting the thief's player to actually be the one figuring out how to disable traps (with no benefit from their character's skills), or an investigator's player to actually be able to tell when the DM is lying (with no benefits from their character's skills)... well, it seems an unbalanced style of play. At least, in my opinion. I... I don't think that is remotely true. When someone, in real life, actively tries to decieve someone else, there are often all sorts of cues that can give the heads-up that something is off. Now, many folks might be good at, and be able to cover up those elements. Which we have a way to mechanically represent in the game, in the form of a Bluff check. The idea that a bumbling idiot can walk up to a group of PCs and tell the exact same lie as a silver-tongued con man, and is [I]exactly as effective at doing so[/I] if the DM doesn't think the PCs have any reason to be suspicious... now [I]that[/I] pretty severely breaks my suspension of disbelief. Now, I suppose it does depend on what you mean by PCs having reason to be suspicious. You mention that an unskilled liar can still convince PCs of something they have no reason to doubt. But how often does that actually come up? How often does a PC ask an NPC the time, and the NPC deliberately tell them a slightly different time for little to no reason? Almost any deception I can see cropping up for the party will often be of much more significance, and I don't see any reason in those situations to simply assume that PCs accept everything as truth, despite some of those PCs being [I]game-mechanically good [/I]at telling when someone is lying to them. Well, yes. That's what I said in my very next statement - that there are times and places where you can handwave attack rolls. But an NPC trying to deceive a PC, and the PC having some chance of detecting it, is not some rare scenario akin to a PC attacking a sleeping foe. It is the social equivalent of a direct combat itself. Like I said, what are some examples of what you are referring to? If you are truly talking about handwaving bluff checks only in inconsequential or meaningless situations (such as NPCs telling PCs a slightly different time), that's probably fine. But you make it sound like you are applying these rules to pretty much all bluff checks, unless you as the DM decide the PCs have reason to be suspicious and are magnanimous enough to let their PCs' skills be relevant. Now, this is a decision, as a DM, you have the right to make. You can totally run things this way. But it absolutely is not RAW, nor do I think it accurately resembles reality, nor do I think it is a fair way to handle the skills and abilities a player has invested in their character. Now, there may still be reasons to choose to run it the way you desire, and there can absolutely be benefits to valuing player skill over character skill. But you should at least acknowledge the truth of what you are doing, and it most definitely is not adhering to the rules themselves, nor is this in any way a more accurate reflection of how deceit works in reality. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Chris Perkins doesn't use Passive Insight
Top