Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7788778" data-attributes="member: 6779196">While this would be very in-character of Angry to say, it is definitely not what the article in question said. Just, for the record.So, to answer this question directly, I would say something along the lines of, “I’m hearing that you are hoping to glean some information about Ned’s intentions or emotional state, but I’m not sure what you hope to learn or how. Can you tell me what you are hoping to accomplish and what your character is doing to try to accomplish it?”Bob is free to be suspicious of Ned or not, as he sees fit. If he wants to express that suspension, he is welcome to do so verbally, though that might have a negative impact on Ned’s opinion of him and by extension the group. Or, he could act out or describe some kind of nonverbal cue, or simply say, “my character is visibly suspicious of him,” which Ned might or might not be able to pick up on (likely resolved with a Wisdom check on Ned’s part). Or I suppose he could say out of character, “my character doesn’t trust him,” or something to that effect. I personally don’t love out of character expressions of in-character internal thoughts and feelings, but I wouldn’t stop a player from doing so.Ok. That’s Susan’s perogative.The fact that neither I nor my players have to worry about how many insight checks is “too many” is, in my opinion, one of the advantages of the way I prefer to resolve these situations.It’s absolutely reasonable, but suspicion per se does not constitute an action, and does not require a dice roll to be expressed in the game.I suspect this is one place where our opinions are too divergent to reconcile. Generally, I believe the more information the player has, the better, as it empowers them to make informed decisions, which for me is the most interesting part of the game. I am not interested in trying to keep information from players because “your character couldn’t know that.” It’s just not something I care about at all.This whole player skill vs character skill thing is a nonsense division in my opinion. The character is a pure game mechanical construct and is not capable of doing anything without the player’s input. Trying to take the player out of the equation would be futile, even if it was something I had any interest in doing. Furthermore, no player needs to be good at reading people to be able to recognize a telegraphed tell, and no player needs any kind of acting skill to simply state what they hope to accomplish and how their character is going about trying to accomplish it.If Ned was lying, I would roll deception for him against the highest Wisdom (Insight) DC of the group. If he failed the roll, I would narrate a telegraph, such as Ned sweating, or his eyes darting about nervously, or stammering, or something. Most often, that is sufficient for the players to make up their minds about whether or not their characters trust Ned, but if they wish to follow up on that tell in some way, they are welcome to tell me what they hope to learn and what their character does to try to glean that information (perhaps “watch carefully for other signs of nervousness,” or “press him further on the subject that made him nervous” or something) and I will resolve that action as I do all actions - by narrating the result if it has no reasonable chance of success or failure, or no consequence for failure, and calling for an appropriate ability check otherwise.</blockquote>

Verification