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

[pemerton]

I'm not looking to rebuild the Tomb of Horrors, but sometimes my players will have more fun if I'm not holding back. Would they ask me to not hold back? I doubt it, they want to succeed, but they know I sometimes just unleash, and those can be some of the best fights and challenges they overcome. And sometimes that means catching them off guard, not telegraphing something.

I'm not blaming the fiction, of course I am creating it. But, why is that fact being used to tell me I'm doing it wrong? That I should change the fiction to fit with someone else's style, because their style is better, because the only reason I'm saying something is impossible is because I determined it was impossible, and that is a bad thing?

<snip>

I imagined the villain, then looked at how they would obfuscate their traps, because it is what they would do. I didn't decide the traps were undetectable then create my villain.

I don't know what your players do/don't find engaging, and wasn't wanting to talk about that.

I'm saying that I don't think it's a good reason for saying I don't telegraph traps that the villain you've thought up would hide those traps. Rather, the question is how does it make the game engaging by having a villain who hides traps. If there's a good answer to that question then by all means devise that villain! But it's that question of what game elements will engage the players that (in my view) should come first.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You know, this does remind me of Thanksgiving.

Sue: "What kind of side dish can I bring?"
Uncle Joe: "Cranberry sauce would be good"
Uncle Bob: "Yeah, just don't bring the stuff out of a can"
Uncle Joe: "I don't know, I kind of like the stuff out of the can"
Uncle Bob: "According to the Betty Crocker cookbook, that's not real cranberry sauce. It's only real cranberry sauce if [insert recipe]"
Uncle Joe: "It's okay, you can bring your sauce, I'll grab a can, I like the ridges."
Uncle Bob: "That's not real cranberry sauce, page 128 BCC says..."
Uncle Joe: "Sure. I just don't like that stuff, it's fine if you do"
Uncle Bob: "You're just putting down cranberry sauce because you haven't tried it"
Uncle Joe: "No, I've tried it. I just prefer the canned stuff."
Uncle Bob: "You just refuse to accept cranberry sauce. BCC page 128 says ..."

Throw in some attempts at humor that fall completely, completely flat or are misconstrued along with a cranky comment here and there and it sounds about right.

Real cranberry sauce is better, but canned cranberry sauce is smoother.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't know what your players do/don't find engaging, and wasn't wanting to talk about that.

I'm saying that I don't think it's a good reason for saying I don't telegraph traps that the villain you've thought up would hide those traps. Rather, the question is how does it make the game engaging by having a villain who hides traps. If there's a good answer to that question then by all means devise that villain! But it's that question of what game elements will engage the players that (in my view) should come first.

Fair enough, my players seem to always want the best story, and interaction with the world. Levels of realism including the intent and tactics of my enemies helps make them feel they are working against real people, not level designed threats.

They engage with the world, so keeping consistency is highly important to that goal.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Fair enough, my players seem to always want the best story, and interaction with the world. Levels of realism including the intent and tactics of my enemies helps make them feel they are working against real people, not level designed threats.

They engage with the world, so keeping consistency is highly important to that goal.

I harbor this dear but dim candle of hope that someday when somebody says “well MY players...” to defend their position, it will turn out that one of the people they are arguing with is, in fact, one of their players.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I harbor this dear but dim candle of hope that someday when somebody says “well MY players...” to defend their position, it will turn out that one of the people they are arguing with is, in fact, one of their players.

Heh, could happen to me. At least two of my players have accounts and occasionally (rarely?) visit, but I've no clue what their usernanes are. They may know mine, though. I'd say I'd welcome the input, but at least one of them would really enjoy trolling the heck outta me and recounting it at the next game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I harbor this dear but dim candle of hope that someday when somebody says “well MY players...” to defend their position, it will turn out that one of the people they are arguing with is, in fact, one of their players.

Unlikely in my case, they all fear the forums for the endless arguments I tend to get into.

pemerton asked how the game is more engaging by what I do, and if there was a good reason for it. I spoke to that, not some grand philosophy on gaming as a whole, just, why I do what I do. Because that is what the people I play with enjoy and keep coming back for.

 

[pemerton]

Fair enough, my players seem to always want the best story, and interaction with the world. Levels of realism including the intent and tactics of my enemies helps make them feel they are working against real people, not level designed threats.

They engage with the world, so keeping consistency is highly important to that goal.

There's a least a hint here that "telegraphed" traps are less realistic, and that there is some contrast between "realism" and "level designed threats" - which is itself perhaps a short-handed for a certain sort of GM attention to the design of scenarios.

My own experience is that the suggested contrasts don't have to hold. So I equally could (and would) say tht my players engage with the ficiton of the gameworld, and hence that consistency is important; and that they like to feel they are facing "real" opponents.

It's possible the approach to "story" is a difference between our tables.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There's a least a hint here that "telegraphed" traps are less realistic, and that there is some contrast between "realism" and "level designed threats" - which is itself perhaps a short-handed for a certain sort of GM attention to the design of scenarios.

My own experience is that the suggested contrasts don't have to hold. So I equally could (and would) say tht my players engage with the ficiton of the gameworld, and hence that consistency is important; and that they like to feel they are facing "real" opponents.

It's possible the approach to "story" is a difference between our tables.

There is a hint there, but only if I never telegraph traps. Sometimes I do, because it makes sense. Other times I do not.

However, saying that not all traps should be telegraphed seems to be frowned upon, so I end up in the position of defending when traps should not be telegraphed and only speaking to that side of my design.

 

[pemerton]

saying that not all traps should be telegraphed seems to be frowned upon, so I end up in the position of defending when traps should not be telegraphed and only speaking to that side of my design.

I don't have views on whether or not traps should be telegraphed. Classic D&D-style traps are not really part of my RPGing.

But generally if someone says "I do X in my game because of realism/immersion", I'll respond to that because I've got strong views about the degree of realism/immersion in my own games!