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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7811275" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>This took me back to a post way upthread:</p><p></p><p>So these two posts taken together made me think about some of the variety of roles that and Insight check might play in a RPG. (And other information-acquisition checks, like knowledge, perception etc are broadly parallel in this respect.)</p><p></p><p>(1) Make a check in order to acquire some information contained in the GM's notes. Normally triggered by a fairly generic form of words - eg <em>I attend to the NPC's voice and manner to get a feel for whether or not she is lying</em>. This sort of thing is as old as D&D itself, though its earliest form is more about finding secret doors than "reading" NPCs. This raises some standard questions about whether the GM makes a secret roll, the duty of the player to act on character rather than player knowledge, etc.</p><p></p><p>Gygax was clearly conscious of the potential infelicities of gating fictional content behind these dice rolls. Thus, on p 110 of his DMG, he says</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">it is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players. You might wish to do this to keep them from knowing some specific fact. You also might wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining.</p><p></p><p>If the information is a <em>reward</em>, then there can be a logic to gating it behind a check - RPGing traditionally has a degree of a gambling element to it. If the information is <em>part of the "story"</em>, then the logic of gating becomes weaker, as the consequence of failure becomes not <em>you miss out on a reward</em> but rather <em>you have a less-good story experience than you might have had</em>.</p><p></p><p>(2) What can superficially seem similar to (1), but is I think importantly different, is using the check to affect the framing of a situation. In the D&D context, the classic version of this is a surprise check. But Insight can be used for a similar purpose. For instance, the 4e PHB says</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">if supposed allies spring an attack and you failed your Insight check to notice the attackers' traitorous intentions, you're surprised.</p><p></p><p>As the surprise example shows, D&D has a long tradition of conditioning framing of situations on the outcomes of checks. Normally these are checks that the GM would call for (somewhat comparable to saving throws). The consequence of failure is that the player has a more adverse framing of the situation.</p><p></p><p>(3) There is the use of Insight that [USER=99817]@chaochou[/USER] describes - to establish some detail or piece of information about the NPC. In this case, the consequence of failure is that the NPC doesn't know or think or behave as the player (and his/her PC) hoped.</p><p></p><p>This way of resolving an Insight check requires the players to be engaged with the fiction, and to have some sense of what they want out of an interaction with a NPC before they declare the actions.</p><p></p><p>EDIT: Saw this:</p><p></p><p>So here's a (4): an Insight check can be used by a player to oblige the GM to establish additional information about a situation.</p><p></p><p>I wouldn't see thiat as about <em>failing to present a scene adequately</em>. There is always a limit on what the GM can narrate. S/he can't always anticipate what a player may find interesting or engaging about a situation. This use of Insight (and other knowledge-type) checks is one way (not the only, obviously) of responding to that possibility.</p><p></p><p>The consequence of failure here is that the situation is not expanded in the way the player hoped for.</p><p></p><p>Well, [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER]'s suggested example of <em>watching the NPC;s face for micro-expressions</em> doesn't seem any different to me in this respect.</p><p></p><p>But in either case I don't see much trouble in establishing a consequence for failure. The most obvious is an adverse reaction as the NPC says <em>Why are you staring at me like that?!</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7811275, member: 42582"] This took me back to a post way upthread: So these two posts taken together made me think about some of the variety of roles that and Insight check might play in a RPG. (And other information-acquisition checks, like knowledge, perception etc are broadly parallel in this respect.) (1) Make a check in order to acquire some information contained in the GM's notes. Normally triggered by a fairly generic form of words - eg [I]I attend to the NPC's voice and manner to get a feel for whether or not she is lying[/I]. This sort of thing is as old as D&D itself, though its earliest form is more about finding secret doors than "reading" NPCs. This raises some standard questions about whether the GM makes a secret roll, the duty of the player to act on character rather than player knowledge, etc. Gygax was clearly conscious of the potential infelicities of gating fictional content behind these dice rolls. Thus, on p 110 of his DMG, he says [INDENT]it is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players. You might wish to do this to keep them from knowing some specific fact. You also might wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining.[/INDENT] If the information is a [I]reward[/I], then there can be a logic to gating it behind a check - RPGing traditionally has a degree of a gambling element to it. If the information is [I]part of the "story"[/I], then the logic of gating becomes weaker, as the consequence of failure becomes not [I]you miss out on a reward[/I] but rather [I]you have a less-good story experience than you might have had[/I]. (2) What can superficially seem similar to (1), but is I think importantly different, is using the check to affect the framing of a situation. In the D&D context, the classic version of this is a surprise check. But Insight can be used for a similar purpose. For instance, the 4e PHB says [indent]if supposed allies spring an attack and you failed your Insight check to notice the attackers' traitorous intentions, you're surprised.[/indent] As the surprise example shows, D&D has a long tradition of conditioning framing of situations on the outcomes of checks. Normally these are checks that the GM would call for (somewhat comparable to saving throws). The consequence of failure is that the player has a more adverse framing of the situation. (3) There is the use of Insight that [USER=99817]@chaochou[/USER] describes - to establish some detail or piece of information about the NPC. In this case, the consequence of failure is that the NPC doesn't know or think or behave as the player (and his/her PC) hoped. This way of resolving an Insight check requires the players to be engaged with the fiction, and to have some sense of what they want out of an interaction with a NPC before they declare the actions. EDIT: Saw this: So here's a (4): an Insight check can be used by a player to oblige the GM to establish additional information about a situation. I wouldn't see thiat as about [I]failing to present a scene adequately[/I]. There is always a limit on what the GM can narrate. S/he can't always anticipate what a player may find interesting or engaging about a situation. This use of Insight (and other knowledge-type) checks is one way (not the only, obviously) of responding to that possibility. The consequence of failure here is that the situation is not expanded in the way the player hoped for. Well, [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER]'s suggested example of [I]watching the NPC;s face for micro-expressions[/I] doesn't seem any different to me in this respect. But in either case I don't see much trouble in establishing a consequence for failure. The most obvious is an adverse reaction as the NPC says [I]Why are you staring at me like that?![/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
Top