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

[Satyrn]

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.

I think you're saying that you don't fudge the DCs, and your players are confident that you're impartially setting and following them.

I'm a little flawed in this regard and need a method to keep me from fudging . . . I'm glad my flaw is interesting to you, though.

 

[Oofta]

I think the word "fudge" (sweet, sweet fudge) is throwing people off.

I can see why some people would not like people rolling and telling them a number before the DM has made a call because they don't want to be influenced by the result that the player gets.

Which makes sense. As much as I try to be objective I do a lot of on-the-fly scenes and don't always have detailed notes on most encounters. That and there's not always a simple formula, especially when the players are really going off the rails which is what they do pretty much every time we play.

So while it doesn't bother me, if a DM asked me to not roll a number for things that require DM judgement call and explained why I'd be okay with it.

 

[Satyrn]

I think the word "fudge" (sweet, sweet fudge) is throwing people off.

I can see why some people would not like people rolling and telling them a number before the DM has made a call because they don't want to be influenced by the result that the player gets.

Which makes sense. As much as I try to be objective I do a lot of on-the-fly scenes and don't always have detailed notes on most encounters. That and there's not always a simple formula, especially when the players are really going off the rails which is what they do pretty much every time we play.

So while it doesn't bother me, if a DM asked me to not roll a number for things that require DM judgement call and explained why I'd be okay with it.

Yeah, you get me!

Also, I guess "fudge" is one of those loaded words, one of our many many many loaded words. I'm definitely talking about what you describe you describe as "influenced."

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

The DM is explicitly free - at least in most eds of D&D - to add to, change, and override the rules as he sees fit. Feels pretty un-bound, to me.

Or, in 5e parlance, not 'not bound by the rules' so much as "Empowered!"

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?

Should fudge, definitely, /and/ something else: should engage in "Illusionism" as much as in necessary to deliver a good experience to his players.

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.

See? Your DM could've done better! (Unless you /like/ 'brutal,' then, well-done, DM!)

 

[Hussar]

Sorry [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] - I'm only sporadically checking the thread and generally only to pick up the last couple of pages, I think I missed your questions. Since at least one poster in this thread has me on ignore, links don't work. If you have questions specifically for me, you'll need to repost them, not link to them.

But, as far as your last post goes, seems about right. It works for you and it certainly is what the rules suggest, so, yeah, go for it.

For me, it's needlessly clunky. Why go through so many steps to get to the same point. In your method, you need at least three steps to get to a resolution:

Step 1

Player states a goal - I want to break down the door.

Step 2

Player states a method - with a crowbar. (note, steps 1 and 2 can be combined)

Step 3

DM calls for a check - Ok, give me an Athletics check with advantage.

Step 4

Player makes check.

That's at least 3 steps since steps one and two can be combined.

In my way, it's a single step:

Step 1

Player - I want to break down the door with a crowbar - the crowbar gives me advantage, so 21 Athletics.

Done.

Someone mentioned earlier about how calling for rolls is linked to new players. I can totally see that. I haven't played with new players in many years, so, it doesn't matter to my table. We've played together for quite a few years now as well, so, generally, the players and DM know each other well enough by now that very few misunderstandings occur.

Since the DMG and PHB are written very much with neophyte players and DM's in mind, I can see why it would appeal to anyone who is new to the game. It needs clearly demarcated roles to lessen confusion in new players. Totally get that. However, my table of 6 players has, collectively, creeping up on two centuries of play experience. We really don't need the rules to tell us who has to do what. Of the six people at the table 5 also run games either for the group or other groups. We've all been behind the screen so, again, we aren't really the target audience for the PHB and DMG advice.

 

[iserith]

Sorry [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] - I'm only sporadically checking the thread and generally only to pick up the last couple of pages, I think I missed your questions. Since at least one poster in this thread has me on ignore, links don't work. If you have questions specifically for me, you'll need to repost them, not link to them.

I thought that may be an issue as I've blocked one person and have been blocked by another. How annoying. Thanks for confirming it's a problem.

In my way, it's a single step:

Step 1

Player - I want to break down the door with a crowbar - the crowbar gives me advantage, so 21 Athletics.

Done.

It may be fewer steps if the outcome is the same (an ability check). But not every task results in a roll, so at least some of the time, the player's roll is superfluous and may need to be addressed in play which is not the case if the player sticks to his or her role. A game also tends to run smoother if it's played in the manner intended in my experience, regardless of how many steps are involved. To that end, I don't think this is a very convincing case for doing what you do, though I pass no judgment on you for doing it.

Someone mentioned earlier about how calling for rolls is linked to new players. I can totally see that. I haven't played with new players in many years, so, it doesn't matter to my table. We've played together for quite a few years now as well, so, generally, the players and DM know each other well enough by now that very few misunderstandings occur.

Since the DMG and PHB are written very much with neophyte players and DM's in mind, I can see why it would appeal to anyone who is new to the game. It needs clearly demarcated roles to lessen confusion in new players. Totally get that. However, my table of 6 players has, collectively, creeping up on two centuries of play experience. We really don't need the rules to tell us who has to do what. Of the six people at the table 5 also run games either for the group or other groups. We've all been behind the screen so, again, we aren't really the target audience for the PHB and DMG advice.

Nor are my regulars - we're all very experienced and have been playing together for years (some from my previous D&D 4e campaigns). I think the rules are for new players and experienced players both and they tell us how this game is played. I think experienced players ignore them at the risk of failing to achieve the goals of play. Each game produces a particular play experience in my view when the rules of the respective games are followed. If I didn't like the D&D 5e experience, I'd probably just go back to playing D&D 4e full time instead of playing D&D 5e with D&D 4e approaches (for example). That seems like a better fit all around, especially after the experience of transitioning from D&D 3.5e to D&D 4e without having developed the viewpoint that I hold now. (Those troubles were the catalyst to get me to stop dragging my approaches from one game into another.)

So the advice I give to a lot of people trying out D&D 5e, though this applies to anyone in my view: Forget what you know about other games. Read the rules. Try to imagine the game experience it will create when followed and the approaches needed to support it. Play it and see if you like it. Then decide if it needs changing or abandoning altogether.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

A game also tends to run smoother if it's played in the manner intended in my experience, regardless of how many steps are involved. To that end, I don't think this is a very convincing case for doing what you do, though I pass no judgment on you for doing it.

The point I was making though is that the designers were intending the game to be played by people with no gaming experience. That's how the game is written to me. Since I'm not that, the advice doesn't really appeal as much.

Nor are my regulars - we're all very experienced and have been playing together for years (some from my previous D&D 4e campaigns). I think the rules are for new players and experienced players both and they tell us how this game is played. I think experienced players ignore them at the risk of failing to achieve the goals of play. Each game produces a particular play experience in my view when the rules of the respective games are followed. If I didn't like the D&D 5e experience, I'd probably just go back to playing D&D 4e full time instead of playing D&D 5e with D&D 4e approaches (for example). That seems like a better fit all around, especially after the experience of transitioning from D&D 3.5e to D&D 4e without having developed the viewpoint that I hold now. (Those troubles were the catalyst to get me to stop dragging my approaches from one game into another.)

So the advice I give to a lot of people trying out D&D 5e, though this applies to anyone in my view: Forget what you know about other games. Read the rules. Try to imagine the game experience it will create when followed and the approaches needed to support it. Play it and see if you like it. Then decide if it needs changing or abandoning altogether.

To me, this experience would be far too structured and rely far to heavily on the DM being at the front and center of the game. Simply ignoring this bit of the game in favor of trusting that my players know what they're doing instead of having me have to judge every declaration means that we have a better experience.

5e is written from the point of view that it has to be played by 15 year olds who've never role played before. So, it gives a very structured approach - goal and method as you call it - which will work very well at nearly any table. There's nothing wrong with doing it this way. It certainly works. And, yes, it certainly would clear up misunderstandings if followed faithfully.

OTOH, it assumes that the group needs this level of structure and that narrative power over the game rests very squarely on the DM's shoulders. That the players have their area of control in the game and the DM has everything else. LIke I said, I have no problems with players declaring stuff to be true. In the earlier example of climbing the wall and using boxes, it would not bother me in the slightest for the player to declare that he climbed the wall because there were boxes among the bric a brac in the last room and that he stacked them up to climb over the wall. IOW, the boxes were never described prior to the player rolling a success.

Doesn't happen much, but, I have no problem with it. 5e does not grant much authorial control to the players by the rules. I prefer the players to have more authorial control in the game. I LOVE it when the players declare stuff to be true that I hadn't added in. Lots of "Yes , and" sort of improv stuff. Would not be something that would work in a group of new players as well, and would not work with the goal and method approach either since it's the success of a check that allows the player to declare things in the game.

I guess that is another central idea - for you, a check is called for when the players haven't found a way to do something without needing a check. For me, a check allows the players to author elements in the game that weren't there beforehand.

 

[5ekyu]

The point I was making though is that the designers were intending the game to be played by people with no gaming experience. That's how the game is written to me. Since I'm not that, the advice doesn't really appeal as much.



To me, this experience would be far too structured and rely far to heavily on the DM being at the front and center of the game. Simply ignoring this bit of the game in favor of trusting that my players know what they're doing instead of having me have to judge every declaration means that we have a better experience.

5e is written from the point of view that it has to be played by 15 year olds who've never role played before. So, it gives a very structured approach - goal and method as you call it - which will work very well at nearly any table. There's nothing wrong with doing it this way. It certainly works. And, yes, it certainly would clear up misunderstandings if followed faithfully.

OTOH, it assumes that the group needs this level of structure and that narrative power over the game rests very squarely on the DM's shoulders. That the players have their area of control in the game and the DM has everything else. LIke I said, I have no problems with players declaring stuff to be true. In the earlier example of climbing the wall and using boxes, it would not bother me in the slightest for the player to declare that he climbed the wall because there were boxes among the bric a brac in the last room and that he stacked them up to climb over the wall. IOW, the boxes were never described prior to the player rolling a success.

Doesn't happen much, but, I have no problem with it. 5e does not grant much authorial control to the players by the rules. I prefer the players to have more authorial control in the game. I LOVE it when the players declare stuff to be true that I hadn't added in. Lots of "Yes , and" sort of improv stuff. Would not be something that would work in a group of new players as well, and would not work with the goal and method approach either since it's the success of a check that allows the player to declare things in the game.

I guess that is another central idea - for you, a check is called for when the players haven't found a way to do something without needing a check. For me, a check allows the players to author elements in the game that weren't there beforehand.

I think to me, and mine, its basically never about "playing 5e" but about "using 5e to play our game". With as many differrntvsystems as we have played thru, GMed, tried, tired of etc etc over the years we haven't really been concerned with the beginner how to's of systems for ages. Nor with the idea of isolating what we learned and liked from the past when we move to new systems. It's all a big buffet and we choose more of this and less of that all the time.

But, we do get new players, frequently. And in my experience, the more the "process" and especially the process of the rules becomes the focus the harder it is to get them over the new guy hump, not less.

But each group will be different.

 

[Bawylie]

I thought that may be an issue as I've blocked one person and have been blocked by another. How annoying. Thanks for confirming it's a problem.



It may be fewer steps if the outcome is the same (an ability check). But not every task results in a roll, so at least some of the time, the player's roll is superfluous and may need to be addressed in play which is not the case if the player sticks to his or her role. A game also tends to run smoother if it's played in the manner intended in my experience, regardless of how many steps are involved. To that end, I don't think this is a very convincing case for doing what you do, though I pass no judgment on you for doing it.



Nor are my regulars - we're all very experienced and have been playing together for years (some from my previous D&D 4e campaigns). I think the rules are for new players and experienced players both and they tell us how this game is played. I think experienced players ignore them at the risk of failing to achieve the goals of play. Each game produces a particular play experience in my view when the rules of the respective games are followed. If I didn't like the D&D 5e experience, I'd probably just go back to playing D&D 4e full time instead of playing D&D 5e with D&D 4e approaches (for example). That seems like a better fit all around, especially after the experience of transitioning from D&D 3.5e to D&D 4e without having developed the viewpoint that I hold now. (Those troubles were the catalyst to get me to stop dragging my approaches from one game into another.)

So the advice I give to a lot of people trying out D&D 5e, though this applies to anyone in my view: Forget what you know about other games. Read the rules. Try to imagine the game experience it will create when followed and the approaches needed to support it. Play it and see if you like it. Then decide if it needs changing or abandoning altogether.

The problem with reading the rules and imagining the game play, de novo, is the same problem with reading sheet music and imagining the song in your head. Very few people can really do that.

So it’s natural that people reach for the nearest possible experience to inform their current doings.

That said, I’m chalking this up to a longstanding disagreement on whether system matters. It kind of does, but not in the way people typically assume.

Anyway that leads me to my advice for new people on trying out D&D. Which is to pretend like you did when you were a kid. Don’t worry about the rules of the game and just put yourself in the imaginary situation and say what you want to do and I will use the rules to help you make that happen, sometimes with dice and sometimes not.

Kids always get this. I’ve never run a table with kids who couldn’t do this within 5 minutes of play. They dive in and out of imaginary spaces like water. But adults fixate on procedure - and IMO that’s because they reach to their nearest experiences, that is Board Games or sports with stratified turns, phases, and rules. You rolled 4 so you move 4 spaces. On doubles, this thing happens. It’s this many points for crossing this line. And (again IMO) it’s always adults who get confused over “how” you’re supposed to do something. Even to the point of confusing the doing of the thing (the task) with the process or model that determines the outcome of that task.

Put simpler - play is play; game mechanics facilitate play but are not themselves play. Kids play. Adults get confused about what to do. This is plain as day when you do a mixed group. I point it out to show how sometimes we lose sight of play as we get older.

Anecdote - a friend of mine recently advised me, while I was in a rough spot: “we don’t stop playing because we get old. We get old because we stop playing.” That sticks with me.

 

[iserith]

The point I was making though is that the designers were intending the game to be played by people with no gaming experience. That's how the game is written to me. Since I'm not that, the advice doesn't really appeal as much.

One wonders what the rules would look like if they were intending the game to be played by people with a lot of gaming experience.

I'm guessing it would look much the same since this game isn't other games.

OTOH, it assumes that the group needs this level of structure and that narrative power over the game rests very squarely on the DM's shoulders. That the players have their area of control in the game and the DM has everything else. LIke I said, I have no problems with players declaring stuff to be true. In the earlier example of climbing the wall and using boxes, it would not bother me in the slightest for the player to declare that he climbed the wall because there were boxes among the bric a brac in the last room and that he stacked them up to climb over the wall. IOW, the boxes were never described prior to the player rolling a success.

Doesn't happen much, but, I have no problem with it. 5e does not grant much authorial control to the players by the rules. I prefer the players to have more authorial control in the game. I LOVE it when the players declare stuff to be true that I hadn't added in. Lots of "Yes , and" sort of improv stuff. Would not be something that would work in a group of new players as well, and would not work with the goal and method approach either since it's the success of a check that allows the player to declare things in the game.

I guess that is another central idea - for you, a check is called for when the players haven't found a way to do something without needing a check. For me, a check allows the players to author elements in the game that weren't there beforehand.

The funny thing here is that if we could go back and look at my posts on the WotC forums from the D&D 4e days, you'd see me getting even more hate than I do now for suggesting that players can establish fictional details about the world. You'd think I personally insulted everyone's mother with that take, even though "Yes, and..." is plain as day in the D&D 4e DMG as are a number of other sections that suggest this is perfectly okay within certain parameters. Perhaps some of the old-timers around here remember the sheer vitriol this produced back in the day.

Now, you don't see me arguing the same points in D&D 5e. It's not explicitly in the rules. While I still find value in "Yes, and..." improvisational techniques on the player side for smoother game play (no endless debates between players, no pointless blocking), I will not argue that players can establish fictional elements outside of their characters' control in D&D 5e. These are different games and so I approach them differently. I find games run more smoothly when that is the case.