If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?

[Michael Silverbane]

For me, the issue is that I don't get the chance to set the DC. I prefer to do that before the player rolls so I can't fudge it, and I can't be seen to be fudging it.

Why would you fudge it? Part of the job of the DM is to adjudicate impartially.

 

[Satyrn]

Why would you fudge it? Part of the job of the DM is to adjudicate impartially.

This seems like a rhetorical question, meant to mock me or someone else.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

This seems like a rhetorical question, meant to mock me or someone else.

It was not that, exactly.

I don't think that you would fudge it, any more than I think that you would set an unattainable DC at a goal and approach that you didn't expect but which might reasonably be thought to succeed (which, to me, is the same as fudging the result after seeing the die roll).

I am trying to think of a less jerky way to rephrase, but I am a jerk, so this may be beyond me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why would you fudge it? Part of the job of the DM is to adjudicate impartially.

Part of the job of a "Judge" at a 70s wargame was to adjudicate impartially, because players were competing. DMing somehow inherited that expectation, but there's no fair competition in traditional RPGs. One side are player characters, the other are made up by the DM for the scenario. One side, the players, are bound by rules, the other, the DM, is not.

It goes beyond impartiality, the DM needs to adjudicate with the player experience in mind, because he's almost wholly responsible for that experience being worth repeating.

 

[Satyrn]

It was not that, exactly.

I don't think that you would fudge it, any more than I think that you would set an unattainable DC at a goal and approach that you didn't expect but which might reasonably be thought to succeed (which, to me, is the same as fudging the result after seeing the die roll).

I am trying to think of a less jerky way to rephrase, but I am a jerk, so this may be beyond me.

But you should think I might fudge it!

The very fact that I value a method because it prevents me from fudging tells you that I might very well fudge a DC if given a chance.

I have in the past, in a couple different ways. When I kept the DC private from my players, and they rolled close but not quite to it, sometimes I nudged it downward so they'd succeed. Sometimes I wouldn't bother setting a DC, and just let the players succeed if they "rolled high." Why? I was too much of a cheerleader fit the players, maybe, or I was too invested in making sure the plot moved forward.

So, yeah, I need a method that curtails my opportunity to fudge the DC. And that's why I don't want the players rolling the dice before I tell them to.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I fudge.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Part of the job of a "Judge" at a 70s wargame was to adjudicate impartially, because players were competing. DMing somehow inherited that expectation, but there's no fair competition in traditional RPGs. One side are player characters, the other are made up by the DM for the scenario. One side, the players, are bound by rules, the other, the DM, is not.

I don't agree with that last sentence, here. The DM is not bound to the same rules as the players, because they have different roles. He is still bound to the principles of play.

It goes beyond impartiality, the DM needs to adjudicate with the player experience in mind, because he's almost wholly responsible for that experience being worth repeating.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying. Does adjudicate with player experience in mind mean that the DM should fudge? Or that the DM should not fudge? Or something else?

I'm a little bit dense today, I was up past my bedtime at a game session yesterday. My character got killed *twice* in about fifteen minutes. It was brutal.

 

[Oofta]

I like fudge as long as it doesn't have nuts in it. Why do people ruin perfectly good fudge?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I like fudge as long as it doesn't have nuts in it. Why do people ruin perfectly good fudge?

I believe I have deduced the underlying problem to our disagreements...

 

[5ekyu]

But you should think I might fudge it!

The very fact that I value a method because it prevents me from fudging tells you that I might very well fudge a DC if given a chance.

I have in the past, in a couple different ways. When I kept the DC private from my players, and they rolled close but not quite to it, sometimes I nudged it downward so they'd succeed. Sometimes I wouldn't bother setting a DC, and just let the players succeed if they "rolled high." Why? I was too much of a cheerleader fit the players, maybe, or I was too invested in making sure the plot moved forward.

So, yeah, I need a method that curtails my opportunity to fudge the DC. And that's why I don't want the players rolling the dice before I tell them to.

Interesting.

In my games they rarely have to bother. I show them up front how I determine DCs and I follow that very strongly throughout. They learn what to expect and when a DC seems higher, which they see by a result, their characters take it as a clue that something unforeseen is amiss.

But for the not Smith, the narrative tends to set the expectations close enough that it foesnt need to come before the roll because things have been described *or* the character leapt before looking and it becomes obvious after the fact.

I can see it as a potential problem if a gm doesnt have a consistent approach *and* a link between narrative/description/contest that the characters and players can follow.