Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7790930" data-attributes="member: 6801845">Except that there is no visible action.&nbsp; The activity is pretty much mental, paying close attention and thinking about what is being said.&nbsp; You can come up with all sorts of words to describe that activity, IMHO &quot;Can I make an insight&quot; is just one way of describing what is always going to be an internal mental process.&nbsp; Threatening Ned is not an insight check, it's an intimidation check.&nbsp; It's unrelated.I've never had a DM have this kind of attitude which is one of the reasons I started this.&nbsp; It seems to be a big deal ... but only on this message board and never in the real world.Let's say I consider my PC an incarnation of Sherlock Holmes.&nbsp; He watches people closely, deduces things about them based on what they're saying and how. If he's trying to intimidate, persuade, badger or console the NPC that's handled completely separately (possibly with it's own check).&nbsp; How many ways are there to say &quot;I observe them closely to intuit their emotional state&quot;? If a PC were doing ... I don't know ... an investigation check of a door to look for traps, I'm going to tell them any info I think they would get from examining the door closely.&nbsp; Maybe they notice that there's no trap, but the lock is new and high quality.&nbsp; Or there are minute scratches on the lock indicating that someone else has tried to clumsily pick the lock.&nbsp; Or any number of other things.&nbsp; I'm not going to withhold information that's unrelated to traps.&nbsp; All I need to know is that they're examining it closely.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 7790930, member: 6801845"] Except that there is no visible action. The activity is pretty much mental, paying close attention and thinking about what is being said. You can come up with all sorts of words to describe that activity, IMHO "Can I make an insight" is just one way of describing what is always going to be an internal mental process. Threatening Ned is not an insight check, it's an intimidation check. It's unrelated. I've never had a DM have this kind of attitude which is one of the reasons I started this. It seems to be a big deal ... but only on this message board and never in the real world. Let's say I consider my PC an incarnation of Sherlock Holmes. He watches people closely, deduces things about them based on what they're saying and how. If he's trying to intimidate, persuade, badger or console the NPC that's handled completely separately (possibly with it's own check). How many ways are there to say "I observe them closely to intuit their emotional state"? If a PC were doing ... I don't know ... an investigation check of a door to look for traps, I'm going to tell them any info I think they would get from examining the door closely. Maybe they notice that there's no trap, but the lock is new and high quality. Or there are minute scratches on the lock indicating that someone else has tried to clumsily pick the lock. Or any number of other things. I'm not going to withhold information that's unrelated to traps. All I need to know is that they're examining it closely. [/QUOTE]

Verification