Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7790646" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Obvioudly, great us in the eye of the beholder... but interesting and getting enjoyment from those involved?The meeting in the bar with the lowlife was going on. The lowlife kept hemming and haawwing. Finally, a few more coins went down and the low life gave up &quot;the guys&quot; names to the PC. &quot;They was them. The ones that done it.&quot; Player said, eyebrow raised, in sight check and rolled low but had good skill', got like a 13 total.&quot;Ok, this is tough, sure, clearly he is not truthful, may not know what truth is. He's also skittish and the hustle and bustle of this bar has him jumpy. Add in that and him sermin' legit scared of these guys he mentioned and you figure it's not the whole truth but its likely close... but all in all, not a sure bet.&quot;That was the &quot;some progress with setback&quot; displaying thru ths narrative the info was not complete and definitely not worthy of high confidence - but not necessarily if it was even a success or fail check.A bit later, the character fudge realize thst as he questioned snd scrutinized the lowlife, someone lifted his purse and some definitely &quot;not happy thsts gone&quot; stuff was now gone... that was the &quot;with setback&quot; part of the actually failed insight check. Had it succeeded, not only would there be more clear description but he would have seen a tell that alerted him to the pickpocket, which was not unknown to the lowlife.The standard 5e &quot;some progress with setback&quot; imo is vital tool for interesting resolution of non-instantaneous efforts. Now, had the PC wanted to they could have followed thru, taken the options to remove some of the problems with their check - given in the narrative- promised protection or safety, hot him outside the bar, someplace away from the hustle and bustle, etc... or maybe raised the offer. Those could gave offered up another check, with advantage - because the player in character decided to use the &quot;scenery&quot; and description presented in game and NPC and change it to his advantage - literally.To me that's a whole lot different than a player needing to know sweating this means lies and guessing what the upcoming lie is about to be. I dont need the player to &quot; play the check&quot; that is the character's job. He foesnt need to know what good insight looks like. He has to play the scene. Big difference to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7790646, member: 6919838"] Obvioudly, great us in the eye of the beholder... but interesting and getting enjoyment from those involved? The meeting in the bar with the lowlife was going on. The lowlife kept hemming and haawwing. Finally, a few more coins went down and the low life gave up "the guys" names to the PC. "They was them. The ones that done it." Player said, eyebrow raised, in sight check and rolled low but had good skill', got like a 13 total. "Ok, this is tough, sure, clearly he is not truthful, may not know what truth is. He's also skittish and the hustle and bustle of this bar has him jumpy. Add in that and him sermin' legit scared of these guys he mentioned and you figure it's not the whole truth but its likely close... but all in all, not a sure bet." That was the "some progress with setback" displaying thru ths narrative the info was not complete and definitely not worthy of high confidence - but not necessarily if it was even a success or fail check. A bit later, the character fudge realize thst as he questioned snd scrutinized the lowlife, someone lifted his purse and some definitely "not happy thsts gone" stuff was now gone... that was the "with setback" part of the actually failed insight check. Had it succeeded, not only would there be more clear description but he would have seen a tell that alerted him to the pickpocket, which was not unknown to the lowlife. The standard 5e "some progress with setback" imo is vital tool for interesting resolution of non-instantaneous efforts. Now, had the PC wanted to they could have followed thru, taken the options to remove some of the problems with their check - given in the narrative- promised protection or safety, hot him outside the bar, someplace away from the hustle and bustle, etc... or maybe raised the offer. Those could gave offered up another check, with advantage - because the player in character decided to use the "scenery" and description presented in game and NPC and change it to his advantage - literally. To me that's a whole lot different than a player needing to know sweating this means lies and guessing what the upcoming lie is about to be. I dont need the player to " play the check" that is the character's job. He foesnt need to know what good insight looks like. He has to play the scene. Big difference to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification