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

[Charlaquin]

For all the calls to authority to justify different people's opinions on how to run the game, they seem to forget this little bit from the first page of instructions in the DMG.

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game.

Umm... I've been staying out of this line of discussion because I'm not really interested in semantics about what's a rule and what's advice, but...

we can follow the rules we like and ignore the ones we don't

the rules serve the DM (and by extension the group) and not the other way around. (...) these are all rules, use the ones you like when you want to use them"

Clearly, iserith is not forgetting that part. It is, in fact, a key part of his argument. He's not saying "these are the rules and therefore you must follow them," he's saying "these are the rules, and if you don't like them feel free to ignore them."

 

[Oofta]

Umm... I've been staying out of this line of discussion because I'm not really interested in semantics about what's a rule and what's advice, but...



Clearly, iserith is not forgetting that part. It is, in fact, a key part of his argument. He's not saying "these are the rules and therefore you must follow them," he's saying "these are the rules, and if you don't like them feel free to ignore them."

So is that why practically every post of his contained something along the lines of "the rules say" and "it's 5E and if you run it according to the rules [and my interpretation of those rules] it works much better"?

All I'm really saying is that I look at the rules as guidance, especially when it comes to things like adjudicating skill checks to see if the players know an NPC is telling the truth. Quoting or referring to the rules incessantly doesn't really bolster your argument in my book, especially when it comes to general guidance. Want to talk about how the fireball spell works? Great. Break out the rules. Something as nebulous as how the players indicate what their players are doing? Meh.

To each their own.

 

[Charlaquin]

So is that why practically every post of his contained something along the lines of "the rules say" and "it's 5E and if you run it according to the rules [and my interpretation of those rules] it works much better"?

All I'm really saying is that I look at the rules as guidance, especially when it comes to things like adjudicating skill checks to see if the players know an NPC is telling the truth. Quoting or referring to the rules incessantly doesn't really bolster your argument in my book, especially when it comes to general guidance. Want to talk about how the fireball spell works? Great. Break out the rules. Something as nebulous as how the players indicate what their players are doing? Meh.

To each their own.

Again, I don't really care about this particular line of discussion. Just wanted to set the record straight that iserith is not ignoring the fact that the rules are meant to serve the game, not the other way around.

 

[iserith]

Again, I don't really care about this particular line of discussion. Just wanted to set the record straight that iserith is not ignoring the fact that the rules are meant to serve the game, not the other way around.

Thank you, though the reason that poster is blocked is because keeping the record straight did not appear to be a shared goal in the past.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The funny thing about rules books in my experience is people say the rules they choose to follow are rules and the rules they don't choose to follow are advice.

How about we say they're all rules, since they're in a rules book that is telling us how to play the game, and we can follow the rules we like and ignore the ones we don't? Doesn't that seem like a reasonable take instead of arbitrarily calling some rules advice because we don't like them?

Funny thing, you seem to be making the assumption that I don't consider the entire PHB, DMG and MM advice.

Didn't you notice in my first response including the rogue's sneak attack as something that I could completely change? I could rebuild all the classes in the PHB, and I can still say I am running a DnD 5e game. Might be a stretch, might be way more work than is worth doing, but I could do it.

So, how about instead of arbitrarily deciding all the things written in the books must be acknowledge on some level, we drop this point of you trying to back me into a corner by agreeing with something I clearly do not agree with.

The books are full of advice, sometimes really good advice that works really well, sometimes advice I see no reason to change, but none of it is more binding than any other part.

Great. I'm glad we agree on this.

I'm glad you decided to skip down to the part you wanted to hear and got enjoyment from it.

Edit: I'm trying to be funny, but alas, I am not funny.

Nah, my Discord friends are betting this goes to 2000 posts.

Also, Chaosmancer made it clear that when I'm seeking to find common ground, it's some sort of trap. I wouldn't want to disappoint.

I've seen the technique many times.

You agree with this point right?
And you agree with this point right?

Well, if you agree with those two points isn't it unreasonable/inconsistent for you not to agree with this point, since it clearly follows from the first two?

However, I think your Dischord buddies are too pessimistic. Betting we hit the limit of post count for the thread, whatever that happens to be on ENWorld.

I mean, I can't remember a specific occurrence off the top of my head, but generally it goes something like this: "Ok, that'll take 10 minutes and a successful DC X [Whatever] check."
"Oh, shoot, maybe I don't want to spend that 10 minutes..."

or

"Ok, make a DC X [Whatever] check, on a failure, [consequence]."
"Hmmm... On second thought maybe I'll hold off on that."

It doesn't happen all that often, but every once and a while it does.

You do realize one of those is so vague as to be useless, since we have no idea what [consequence] is, and the other includes you adding an element of spent time that they were likely not expecting since generally actions take very little time to accomplish.

And before this gets conversation spins too far off, I rarely utilize precise times in my games. We generally don't need to track ten minutes. I also rarely use random encounters, because I find they generally are just a waste of time (if they are going to be random) and I much prefer to simply have encounters planned out depending on the location and the current plot. (Gangs of goons under the sway of the vampires the party angered might ambush them on the streets for example, but I'm not rolling a percentile at ten minute intervals to see if that happens.)

Hardy har. I've just taken to calling the games I'm talking about "from software games" because calling them "dark souls" games leaves out Demon's Souls, "the souls games" leaves out Bloodborne, and now even "Soulsborne" games leaves out Sekiro. And clearly you got what I meant.

Wasn't kidding about having to look them up. I've been out of the video game scene for a few years, so while "From Software" tickled the back of my mind I wasn't certain what you meant. I only even know Sekiro exists because I follow Gajin Goomba and he did a video on the main character. If I hadn't watched that a week or two ago I'd have no idea what you were talking about there.

Yes, but you can still notice and avoid traps the first time you encounter them, if you're playing cautiously and paying close attention to the environment. It helps if you're familiar with the From Software/soulslike style, just like it helps in my D&D games if you're familiar with the conventions and tropes of the genre.

Does nothing to dispute what I said. Sometimes it is just pure luck, seeing something through a window because you went right instead of left and realize you'll be going through that room later. But if you'd gone left... well then you fall into the ambush.

Absolutely! Tons of games use telegraphing, which should be a strong indication that it's a piece of design that tends to be well-received by players. *snip*

Often, but sometimes you can notice that something is fishy. Again, a genre-savvy player sees holes in the floor and thinks, "this looks suspicious."

I think you missed my point that Dark Souls frustrates me because every uses it as an example, that was as far as I was thinking that would go.

And sure, it can work occasionally, heck maybe it can even work all the time if you really want it to. But, that doesn't mean you have to use it for every trap, for every plot point, for every mystery.

Most people don't only play Dark Souls, they play other games as well that give them other thrills. I'm not going to telegraph everything, sometimes it doesn't make sense, sometimes it just doesn't fit to telegraph the what is coming.

And there are some surprises my players don't see coming. But I always want to make sure they could. In my opinion, a surprise you can't possibly foresee is a gotcha. Maybe it's difficult to foresee, but it shouldn't be impossible.

RE: enemies working to reduce telegraphing, I don't agree, at least when it comes to traps. The point of a trap is to protect something from those who aren't in the know, but to allow those who are in the know safe passage. That means there should be a signal for those in the know. Now, since the PCs aren't in the know, that signal shouldn't be obvious. Going back to my example of the statues that mark the locations of spear traps, there's no way someone not in the know is going to pick up on the fact that the statues of dwarves from a particular clan are safe while those of another clan are trapped. Heck, most folks not in the know aren't even going to be able to recognize the clans the dwarves in the statues belonged to, unless they're proficient in History. But a character who is paying attention might pick up on the pattern, and that, to me, is what makes it difficult-but-fair.

Sure most traps work that way, but does the Lich who can simply teleport into his inner sanctum really need traps like that, it is meant to be a gauntlet of death no one can get through. Not a gauntlet of death his nonexistent living minions can get through.

And plot wise, I once had a game where one of the major powers was an Elven merchant woman, richest and most influential person in the area. Also a secret Drow spy hiding under an illusion and had been for 100 years. What clues should I give the players who don't even have a reason to suspect her? What slip ups make sense for someone like that. Heck, her necklace which hid her illusion had a second setting which revealed horrible burns, a vain and powerful woman hiding her disfigurements under an illusion explains why she is constantly under an illusion spell

I'm not saying the players could have never figured it out. She did have a few shadow organizations they might have traced back to her and gotten suspicious about, but the entire point is how well she covered her tracks. It should be nearly impossible to break her cover, how do you telegraph that without breaking the fiction of it?

Sure, maybe if I was a better DM I could "find a way" but, if the entire point is how hard it is, then there shouldn't be a reason to make it easier.

I didn't say that. If the plan works, clearly it wasn't a mistake. If the plan doesn't work though, and you didn't consider the consequences, and they're bad consequences, that might be a mistake. I want to avoid putting players into situations where they make mistakes as a result of lack of information.

So their action is only a mistake if they lack information, but the only information you are giving are the obvious consequences that they should have known. Nothing else. And the only thing that determines if they succeed or fail is the die roll, or if they back down and come up with a plan that doesn't require a die roll.

So, is it a mistake to come up with a plan that comes down to a die roll?

I'm not trying to attack your style, but your language is showing a bias and your defense of what you are saying seems inconsistent.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game.

And dems the rulez, folks!

Seriously, 5e (heck, D&D in general) has a teeny bit in common with Thunderdome, that way. ("You know the rules! There are no rules!")

What follows are Da Rulez: da first rule is, the DM can ignore or change the rulez all he wants. Including dis one.

"But, if he ignores the rule that says he can ignore the rules, then he can't ignore the rules, which means he is following the rules, but then he has to follow the rule that says he can ignore the rules, but … Illogical. Illogical. All units relate. All units. Norman, co-ordinate."

… yeah, funny how dat works out, huh …


And that is why Androids, as imagined in the late 60's, can't play D&D.

 

[iserith]

Funny thing, you seem to be making the assumption that I don't consider the entire PHB, DMG and MM advice.

Didn't you notice in my first response including the rogue's sneak attack as something that I could completely change? I could rebuild all the classes in the PHB, and I can still say I am running a DnD 5e game. Might be a stretch, might be way more work than is worth doing, but I could do it.

So, how about instead of arbitrarily deciding all the things written in the books must be acknowledge on some level, we drop this point of you trying to back me into a corner by agreeing with something I clearly do not agree with.

The books are full of advice, sometimes really good advice that works really well, sometimes advice I see no reason to change, but none of it is more binding than any other part.

I don't deny the rules can be ignored or changed.

Would it be reasonable to say that you consider all of the rules books simply to be advice? That they contain no rules at all? Even the parts that specifically use the word "rules?"

I've seen the technique many times.

You agree with this point right?
And you agree with this point right?

Well, if you agree with those two points isn't it unreasonable/inconsistent for you not to agree with this point, since it clearly follows from the first two?

If that is indeed my tactic, and I don't say it is, wouldn't you rather be aware of your unreasonableness or inconsistencies so you can take steps to address them?

 

[Charlaquin]

You do realize one of those is so vague as to be useless, since we have no idea what [consequence] is,

*shrug* sorry? Like I said, I can't remember a specific example off the top of my head. You'll fall into the pit. Whatever.

and the other includes you adding an element of spent time that they were likely not expecting since generally actions take very little time to accomplish.

And before this gets conversation spins too far off, I rarely utilize precise times in my games. We generally don't need to track ten minutes. I also rarely use random encounters, because I find they generally are just a waste of time (if they are going to be random) and I much prefer to simply have encounters planned out depending on the location and the current plot. (Gangs of goons under the sway of the vampires the party angered might ambush them on the streets for example, but I'm not rolling a percentile at ten minute intervals to see if that happens.)

Most players who have been playing in one of my games for more than a few sessions are going to have a pretty good idea of what actions are going to take 10 minutes. I've talked about this before in the thread, but 10 minutes (the amount of time it takes to cast a spell as a ritual) is my go-to length of time for actions where time spent is the only cost. Picking a lock, thoroughly searching the evil vizier's desk, whatever. It's technically an abstract amount of time spent, and may be slightly more or less than 10 minutes, but either way, 6 such abstract time intervals spent add up to one hour (the amount of time it takes to take a short rest), which is also technically somewhat abstract, but it's the interval at which I roll for random encounters. And when I say "random encounters," I mean encounters that occur randomly, not necessarily encounters that are themselves randomly generated. The random element is when they happen, not what happens when they are rolled.

I too generally have a set of planned encounters that are appropriate to the dungeon or the adventure, and generally serve the story at hand. Often they come in a specific order. For instance, I'm currently running my players through the dungeons in Tales from the Yawning Portal. When we get to White Plume Mountain, I plan for the party to not be the only group of adventurers following the clues to find Whelm, Wave, and Blackrazor. We're still on Forge of Fury, so I don't have the "random" encounters for White Plume Mountain planned out yet, but my intent for when we get there is to have a set of encounters with other adventurers seeking the weapons that occur in a specific progression. But progress will be made by way of dice rolls that occur roughly once each hour, or rather, once every 6 times the players take an action where time spent is the cost. Additionally, actions that make a lot of noise or otherwise attract attention to the party can trigger extra rolls for these encounters, though generally with a lower chance of resulting in an encounter.

Wasn't kidding about having to look them up. I've been out of the video game scene for a few years, so while "From Software" tickled the back of my mind I wasn't certain what you meant. I only even know Sekiro exists because I follow Gajin Goomba and he did a video on the main character. If I hadn't watched that a week or two ago I'd have no idea what you were talking about there.

Does nothing to dispute what I said. Sometimes it is just pure luck, seeing something through a window because you went right instead of left and realize you'll be going through that room later. But if you'd gone left... well then you fall into the ambush.

I think you missed my point that Dark Souls frustrates me because every uses it as an example, that was as far as I was thinking that would go.

And sure, it can work occasionally, heck maybe it can even work all the time if you really want it to. But, that doesn't mean you have to use it for every trap, for every plot point, for every mystery.

You don't have to use it for any trap if you don't want to. My preference is to use some degree of telegraphing for every trap. I personally don't think it's fair to my players to spring traps on them that they couldn't have seen coming. Again, it doesn't have to be obvious, but in my opinion if it wasn't possible to realize it was coming, it wasn't a fair challenge.

Most people don't only play Dark Souls, they play other games as well that give them other thrills. I'm not going to telegraph everything, sometimes it doesn't make sense, sometimes it just doesn't fit to telegraph the what is coming.

*shrug* I don't agree.

Sure most traps work that way, but does the Lich who can simply teleport into his inner sanctum really need traps like that, it is meant to be a gauntlet of death no one can get through. Not a gauntlet of death his nonexistent living minions can get through.

I guess, but that doesn't sound like a very fun dungeon. And it's pretty trivial to come up with a reason the Lich might have decided to leave clues. Maybe he does have living minions. Or maybe he has a sense of sportsmanship and wants to make sure the adventurers have a chance. Maybe he (wisely, in my opinion) assumes his gauntlet of death won't be able to lure in very many adventurers if they don't think they'll be able to find their way through it. This comes back to what I said about the chandelier. Sure, if the reason the chandelier is unstable is because the wood that holds it up has rotten in a place that the characters can't see... Yeah, it doesn't make sense to tell them the chandelier might break. But, as DM it is your decision to set the scenario up that way. If, like me, you think it's important that players have information, you can set it up in such a way that it is reasonable for the character to know the chandelier might break.

And plot wise, I once had a game where one of the major powers was an Elven merchant woman, richest and most influential person in the area. Also a secret Drow spy hiding under an illusion and had been for 100 years. What clues should I give the players who don't even have a reason to suspect her? What slip ups make sense for someone like that. Heck, her necklace which hid her illusion had a second setting which revealed horrible burns, a vain and powerful woman hiding her disfigurements under an illusion explains why she is constantly under an illusion spell

I'm not saying the players could have never figured it out. She did have a few shadow organizations they might have traced back to her and gotten suspicious about, but the entire point is how well she covered her tracks. It should be nearly impossible to break her cover, how do you telegraph that without breaking the fiction of it?

Sure, maybe if I was a better DM I could "find a way" but, if the entire point is how hard it is, then there shouldn't be a reason to make it easier.

...That's a mystery, not a trap. That's is a very different situation than what we've been discussing. I also don't generally run mystery adventures because they're not my favorite, and frankly, I'm not very good at writing them.

So their action is only a mistake if they lack information, but the only information you are giving are the obvious consequences that they should have known. Nothing else. And the only thing that determines if they succeed or fail is the die roll, or if they back down and come up with a plan that doesn't require a die roll.

So, is it a mistake to come up with a plan that comes down to a die roll?

No. Stumbling into consequences you didn't see coming is a mistake. Taking a risky action when you know the risk and potential consequences is not a mistake, it's a calculated risk. A gamble. If a player declares an action that has an uncertain outcome and potential consequences, I will tell them the odds and potential consequences (within the bounds of what it is reasonable for the character to know, of course). If the player was already expecting the consequences and expected the difficulty to be in the same ballpark that I gave, no harm done. If the player expected lesser consequences or a much lower risk of failure, then we've successfully avoided a mistake. Now that player can adjust their expectations and proceed accordingly. Maybe they still think the gamble is worth it and proceed, in which case, great. Maybe they think twice and decide the risk is too great, in which case, also great. As long as nobody is accidentally taking risks that are far greater than they anticipated or have far worse consequences than they thought (again, within the bounds of what it is reasonable for the character to know).

I'm not trying to attack your style, but your language is showing a bias and your defense of what you are saying seems inconsistent.

Coulda fooled me.

 

[Hussar]

That's not really what they say though. It's very clear on the DM's role as someone who knows the rules and is making sure everyone plays by them, for example, as well as being a mediator between the rules and players, setting limits, etc.

It is also true, however, that the rules serve the DM (and by extension the group) and not the other way around. So I think my stated position of - "these are all rules, use the ones you like when you want to use them" is more accurate. And certainly more consistent than what amounts to "That one's a rule because I follow it and that bit's advice because I don't."

We've had this conversation.

5e is written for very new gamers who have little to no gaming experience. As such, it is written to provide a specific experience for a specific audience. Since I am neither a new gamer nor someone with little to no gaming experience, much of what they say doesn't really apply to me. They're all advice. However, some advice looks a lot more like a rule - longswords do d8 damage, than others.

Funny how 4e was crucified for being too limited in playstyle and trying to force gamers into specific paths, yet, now, 5e is being lauded for doing exactly the same thing.

 

[Hussar]

Quote Originally Posted by Charlaquin View Post
Umm... I've been staying out of this line of discussion because I'm not really interested in semantics about what's a rule and what's advice, but...



Clearly, iserith is not forgetting that part. It is, in fact, a key part of his argument. He's not saying "these are the rules and therefore you must follow them," he's saying "these are the rules, and if you don't like them feel free to ignore them."
So is that why practically every post of his contained something along the lines of "the rules say" and "it's 5E and if you run it according to the rules [and my interpretation of those rules] it works much better"?

All I'm really saying is that I look at the rules as guidance, especially when it comes to things like adjudicating skill checks to see if the players know an NPC is telling the truth. Quoting or referring to the rules incessantly doesn't really bolster your argument in my book, especially when it comes to general guidance. Want to talk about how the fireball spell works? Great. Break out the rules. Something as nebulous as how the players indicate what their players are doing? Meh.

To each their own.

QFT. One has to wonder why [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has repeatedly, I believe I counted what 8 times in 10 posts, insisted that he is only doing what the rules state and if we would just follow the rules, we'd have a better time, if, at the same time, he agrees that the rules are simply guidelines.