NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Monayuris" data-source="post: 7797026" data-attributes="member: 6859536">Good question. I'm not super sure how to make history or knowledge checks exciting. My approach is that if a player asks "What do I know about X?" I first recognize it as a valid question. The player in the real world may not know the same things as their character who lives in the campaign world. My current approach to this is to figure out the 'rarity' of the X. If it is something common enough, I will just tell them what they want to know. If I don't know what they really want to know, I'll ask the player... "What is the purpose for needing this information?". If its esoteric, I'd ask for a roll. I guess this is where it is difficult to make it exciting... right now, my idea is a success means the player recalls the information and can act on it, if a failure then perhaps provide a situation where the character does not know, but I'll give info about how they can get the info they need (which may lead to more adventure). I know this kind of steps on the Sage background ability, but I think that ability should be the default for failed checks.I don't really run high intrigue style games, but I kind of put insight into the same bucket as combat. I can't expect myself as a DM to act in such a way as to provide proper 'tells' that the NPC is lying (without being obvious about it) and I can't expect my players to be so skilled that they can read my proper role-playing to accurately ascertain whether the NPC I'm playing is lying or not. So, its something that is best abstracted.The real question is why are you lying to the PCs and what does it gain you to deceive the players through lies? As a DM, I think you are the players full senses in the game and I think they should be able to trust you. If you have an NPC that is lying to the players, its probably just better to tell the players that the NPC is likely lying. I think it is more interesting to just say they are lying and let the players figure out what to do about it, rather than flat out give them false info and let them act on that and then pull the rug out from under them, later.If it has to be an ability check, then you have a very interesting situation... do you do the check in secret (so they don't know whether they succeed or fail) and then tell the players lies or truth based on the result? Do you allow the check in the open with a known DC and ask that your players role play the outcome?Personally, I'd lean to the second choice. I'd rather be transparent to the players about the situation and let them choose to role-play their characters' ignorance. I guess I'm pretty hard-core about player information. I don't like to lie to the players, even if it creates a 'realistic effect'. I guess this is why I'm not good at or not so interested in heavy intrigue games. Just not my thing.</blockquote>

Verification