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

Hussar

Legend
Iserith said:
only observing that sometimes running the game in a way that runs contrary to its design can make for a less smoothly running game
Fair enough. I can also make the observation that running the game in the way that the game suggests can make for a less smoothly running game.

I'd say it depends mostly on the group and the person running the game.

But, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], don't you find it strange that the only people who apparently understand the way you run the games are also the people that agree with you? That everyone who disagrees with you apparently just doesn't understand what you're doing? Something to cogitate on since we're all about that self reflection right?
 
Oh good grief. You're splitting the hair between "better" and "smoother"? Seriously?
Also between the /game/ being better and the experience of running it smoother. The latter is less a claim of quality about the game itself.

Though I would go right ahead and say that 5e is a better game if run the 'right' way by the right DM.
with iserith being a pretty fair example. Just needs a bit more shameless illusionism. ;)

And then double down by saying that by not following the rules I'm "working at cross-purposes to the game's design"? Come on, for someone complaining about being misrepresented, that's about as pedantic as it gets.
Because it's just fun to type silliness like this: no, it's by following the rules that you're working at cross purposes to the game's rules which rule that the rules should be over-ruled selectively whenever ruling with the rules would detract from the rule of the DM.

Or something like that.

Yeah, I'm joking, but I'm also serious. The brilliance of DM Empowerment is that you can't take refuge in "just play'n by the rules," you have a greater responsibility than that as DM.

Of course the implication that my game runs less smoothly (or less well in plain English) because I do not play your way is pretty clear.
Well, iff you're running 5e (or TSR era D&D), and iff you're insisting on playing by natural-language rules as if they were perfectly clear unambiguous precise-jargon rules, your experience may be less smooth than it could be if you just circular-filed the book and did whatever you wanted. Or ran something else. Which amounts to the same thing, really.

See, the problem is, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], you're presuming that the rules ONLY support one experience. That unless I play exactly the way you do, I cannot understand it, nor have I apparently ever played that way. Despite repeatedly being told that I have, in fact, played the way you play, done it for years in fact, and didn't enjoy it, I'm apparently unable to understand what you are saying.
Of course the rules support many sorts of experiences - whatever sort of experiences /you/ support while ignoring the bits of the rules that don't support that experience are perforce, supported.

Whereas I look at the fact that a very large chunk of the books are written very much for those with little or no gaming experience means that there are large chunks of the book that I can safely ignore or change.
Not a bad way to write the books when you have tons of new people entering the hobby through your flagship offering. I'd say you can safely ignore or change anything between the covers, but, really, feel free to change/ignore the covers, too.

It seems odd to me to call rules that refer to themselves as "rules" advice. Even rules about how to conduct the game outside of the rules of the game are called "table rules."
Ultimately the GM in any RPG can change/overrule/ignore the rules of the game he's running. Even if that game /does/ try to present itself as a tense set of immutable rules.

5e does not choose to so present itself.

So is that a "yes" or a "no" on finding value in seeing one's own inconsistencies and contradictions?
It is and it isn't.

I wouldn't call myself "strict." I change rules regularly to suit the campaign. What I don't change are the fundamental elements such as how to play the game and the adjudication process.
If you strictly follow the rules of a game written in natural language, that empowers the DM, /you're not following the rules at all/. OTOH, if you constantly subordinate the rules to your own judgement, you're totally following them.

I also make no judgment as to how well your game runs, having never seen it firsthand, only observing that sometimes running the game in a way that runs contrary to its design can make for a less smoothly running game. We see this sort of thing reported on the forums all the time.
I'll admit that the first few times I ran 5e, I ran it as 'by the book' as possible in every detail, and things got a lot better when I got over that impulse.


Another way to look at it. The rules of the game exist on more than one level. The general order/philosophy of play is an over-arching rule that offers a helpful guideline to the DM. The details - bonuses, skills, monster stat blocks, etc, etc, etc - are on another level. Following the higher-level rule includes making judgements about and changing/ignoring/modding/over-ruling/tweaking the lower-level details.



There must be some reasonable way to state this that's obvious to folks that didn't grok DMing back in the day.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
Fair enough. I can also make the observation that running the game in the way that the game suggests can make for a less smoothly running game.

I'd say it depends mostly on the group and the person running the game.

But, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], don't you find it strange that the only people who apparently understand the way you run the games are also the people that agree with you? That everyone who disagrees with you apparently just doesn't understand what you're doing? Something to cogitate on since we're all about that self reflection right?
No, I don't find it strange since we have a record of the words those people used that show they do not understand. Based on those words, as best as I can figure, some folks really don't like a game that I'm not running.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
Ultimately the GM in any RPG can change/overrule/ignore the rules of the game he's running. Even if that game /does/ try to present itself as a tense set of immutable rules.
I've said nothing to the contrary.

5e does not choose to so present itself.
That is true.

So is that a "yes" or a "no" on finding value in seeing one's own inconsistencies and contradictions?
That question wasn't directed at you and your answer makes little sense to me.

If you strictly follow the rules of a game written in natural language, that empowers the DM, /you're not following the rules at all/. OTOH, if you constantly subordinate the rules to your own judgement, you're totally following them.
I advocate running the game by its rules which includes the DM deciding when the rules come into play to resolve uncertainty.

I'll admit that the first few times I ran 5e, I ran it as 'by the book' as possible in every detail, and things got a lot better when I got over that impulse.

Another way to look at it. The rules of the game exist on more than one level. The general order/philosophy of play is an over-arching rule that offers a helpful guideline to the DM. The details - bonuses, skills, monster stat blocks, etc, etc, etc - are on another level. Following the higher-level rule includes making judgements about and changing/ignoring/modding/over-ruling/tweaking the lower-level details.



There must be some reasonable way to state this that's obvious to folks that didn't grok DMing back in the day.
I would say "How to Play" and the DM's adjudication process are the fundamental aspects of the game and it is tinkered with at your game's peril. The rest of the rules come into play at the DM's discretion (so say the rules).
 
I've said nothing to the contrary.
That is true.
That question wasn't directed at you and your answer makes little sense to me.
Yeah, we may be in violent agreement on some points here. (The last one was my un-patented lame attempt at humor.)

I advocate running the game by its rules which includes the DM deciding when the rules come into play to resolve uncertainty. I would say "How to Play" and the DM's adjudication process are the fundamental aspects of the game and it is tinkered with at your game's peril. The rest of the rules come into play at the DM's discretion (so say the rules).
That sure sounds clear & reasonable, to me.


I find it too much fun to shout the superficial contradictions.
I should probably just shut up.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Fair enough. I can also make the observation that running the game in the way that the game suggests can make for a less smoothly running game.

I'd say it depends mostly on the group and the person running the game.

But, @iserith, don't you find it strange that the only people who apparently understand the way you run the games are also the people that agree with you? That everyone who disagrees with you apparently just doesn't understand what you're doing? Something to cogitate on since we're all about that self reflection right?
I mean... One possible explanation of this phenomenon might be that people who do understand the way we run the game tend to like it. It's a bit like saying "Don't you think it's a little odd that everyone who says they like sushi seem to have tried authentically-made sushi?" No, I don't find that odd, honestly. Authentically made sushi is very good. Obviously it's not to everyone's tastes, and there certainly are some folks who have tried it and still didn't like it, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not the least bit surprising to me that most people who have tried it have liked it, and most people who are convinced they won't like it based on their experience with cheap sushi haven't tried it.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I mean... One possible explanation of this phenomenon might be that people who do understand the way we run the game tend to like it. It's a bit like saying "Don't you think it's a little odd that everyone who says they like sushi seem to have tried authentically-made sushi?" No, I don't find that odd, honestly. Authentically made sushi is very good. Obviously it's not to everyone's tastes, and there certainly are some folks who have tried it and still didn't like it, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not the least bit surprising to me that most people who have tried it have liked it, and most people who are convinced they won't like it based on their experience with cheap sushi haven't tried it.
Or ... people understand, have played that way and choose not to be that picky about how people declare what they are doing. Oh, and sushi is still just raw fish despite all the hype.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Or ... people understand, have played that way and choose not to be that picky about how people declare what they are doing.
Certainly. Although, this explanation would fail to account for the fact that a majority of the people who claim to have played that way and chosen not to be picky about how people declare what they are doing also display several fundamental misunderstandings of the playstyle they claim to have tried.

Oh, and sushi is still just raw fish despite all the hype.
It's fish (sometimes raw, but often cooked), rice, nori, and various vegetables.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Certainly. Although, this explanation would fail to account for the fact that a majority of the people who claim to have played that way and chosen not to be picky about how people declare what they are doing also display several fundamental misunderstandings of the playstyle they claim to have tried.
What don't I understand?
- Players should not declare use of skills, the DM calls for skills if necessary.
-There should never be a skill check unless there is a significant penalty for failure.
-The DM should never call for (or allow a player to ask for) a skill check if there is no chance of failure (i.e. no insight check if the NPC is telling the truth like the OP).
-Players should always avoid a skill check if possible, which includes describing for example how they disarm a trap.
-Traps and challenges should be broadcast so that they are obvious.

I'm not saying everyone runs things exactly like that, but that's the gist. Or did I miss something?

It's fish (sometimes raw, but often cooked), rice, nori, and various vegetables.
And, in the US anyway served with artificially colored green horseradish that's been mislabeled 'wasabi'. What's your point?
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
-Players should always avoid a skill check if possible, which includes describing for example how they disarm a trap.
Well, for one, it’s up to the player how they want to go about achieving their goals. Trying to avoid having to make skill checks where is a good strategy for success, but it’s certainly not a necessary part of the technique. Depending on what you mean by “describing how they disarm a trap,” this may be either something that is a necessary part of any action declaration under this technique (if by “describe,” you mean “state your action in terms of the character’s approach to the goal of disarming the trap,) or something that is never required, though certainly permitted (of by “describe” you mean go into great detail about the specifics of the character’s approach).

-Traps and challenges should be broadcast so that they are obvious.
Not at all. Traps and challenges should be telegraphed so that a player who is paying close attention might be able to anticipate it. That does not mean this telegraphing needs to make the presence of the trap or other challenge obvious.

I'm not saying everyone runs things exactly like that, but that's the gist. Or did I miss something?
There’s the bit about letting the players know the DC and potential consequences of an action if a roll is required to resolve an action, though that one isn’t a universally accepted part of the technique. As well, there is a tendency to think of actions that don’t require rolls as “automatic success” or “automatic failure” as opposed to merely not needing dice to resolve. There are several similar fundamental differences in the way the technique’s opponents and advocates view things like the role of the dice, and the nature of checks.

And, in the US anyway served with artificially colored green horseradish that's been mislabeled 'wasabi'. What's your point?
Just kinda found it ironic that you either misunderstood or misrepresented the fundamental components of sushi there.
 
Last edited:

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Well, for one, it’s up to the player how they want to go about achieving their goals. Trying to avoid having to make skill checks where is a good strategy for success, but it’s certainly not a necessary part of the technique. Depending on what you mean by “describing how they disarm a trap,” this may be either something that is a necessary part of any action declaration under this technique (if by “describe,” you mean “state your action in terms of the character’s approach to the goal of disarming the trap,) or something that is never required, though certainly permitted (of by “describe” you mean go into great detail about the specifics of the character’s approach).


Not at all. Traps and challenges should be telegraphed so that a player who is paying close attention might be able to anticipate it. That does not mean this telegraphing needs to make the presence of the trap or other challenge obvious.


There’s the bit about letting the players know the DC and potential consequences of an action if a roll is required to resolve an action, though that one isn’t a universally accepted part of the technique. As well, there is a tendency to think of actions that don’t require rolls as “automatic success” or “automatic failure” as opposed to merely not needing dice to resolve. There are several similar fundamental differences in the way the technique’s opponents and advocates view things like the role of the dice, and the nature of checks.


Just kinda found it ironic that you either misunderstood or misrepresented the fundamental components of sushi there.
There's a fair amount of variation, and my quickly-typed bullet list isn't meant to be comprehensive.

But seriously. There are over a thousand posts. I think both sides have explained their sides or they aren't being consistent in what they say. I simply run my game differently and find it annoying that people keep telling me that I'm too stupid and ignorant understand the brilliance of their style because if I did I'd agree.
 

Hussar

Legend
I mean... One possible explanation of this phenomenon might be that people who do understand the way we run the game tend to like it. It's a bit like saying "Don't you think it's a little odd that everyone who says they like sushi seem to have tried authentically-made sushi?" No, I don't find that odd, honestly. Authentically made sushi is very good. Obviously it's not to everyone's tastes, and there certainly are some folks who have tried it and still didn't like it, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not the least bit surprising to me that most people who have tried it have liked it, and most people who are convinced they won't like it based on their experience with cheap sushi haven't tried it.
Heh. Most folks have never eaten truly authentic sushi. Heck, even here in Japan, most folks haven't eaten really authentic sushi because it's unbelievably expensive. Did your sushi have avocado or tomato? That's from California. Did your sushi have chicken or anything other than fish? Yup, not traditional. Which soy sauce did you use? After all, there's a considerable regional difference in soy sauce and, if you're from outside of Japan, most likely the soy sauce you had was Chinese.

On and on and on.

I've met people who absolutely adore conveyer belt sushi (kainten sushi). But, by and large, that's made with frozen, low quality fish. It's the McDonalds of sushi. Yet its fantastically more popular than actual sushi. Trying to claim that authenticity makes it better doesn't really hold much water since, outside of a very small percentage of people, so few have actually eaten truly authentic sushi.

Some folks like sushi. Some folks like teriyaki chicken sushi. Some folks like avocado sushi. Does that mean that most folks are wrong for liking sushi that isn't authentic? Or only folks who eat traditional sushi are the ones who really know what sushi is? Or that folks are wrong for liking teriyaki chicken sushi but detesting ikura (fish eggs) sushi because they just don't "really understand" or apparently haven't really tried the "real" sushi?

It's unbelievably arrogant to continuously assume that everyone who tries a particular way of gaming will like it and that if someone doesn't like it, they obviously just haven't done it right. The onetruewayism stench in here is getting very, very thick. I play the way I do because I like it better this way. Not because it's better for anyone else or following the rules, or runs smoother (although I do think that it does run faster - less steps=runs faster) or anything else. I've tried it the way you and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and co. are talking about and it doesn't work for me. It's slower, and forces the DM into a central position that I DO NOT WANT TO BE IN since the DM now has to constantly ask for rolls rather than just letting the players drive the game.
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
I find it rather astonishing that you interpret this debate as us preaching a superior “onetruewayism”.

From my point of view this entire discussion has been a few of us defending our approach from (intentional?) mischaracterization and denigration “Mother May I”, “pixelbitching”, “talkie talkie” etc.
 

Hussar

Legend
Y'know, I have to apologize for the "talkie talkie" thing. I thought it was funny and cute, totally not meant as a shot or anything like that. I see that it has very much taken on a life of its own, and that's totally my bad. Sorry about that.

When I say, talky talky or talky bits, I'm simply meaning those parts of the game that revolve around the social pillar. As opposed to the hacky bits or looky bits. :p

Yeah, humour is always tough.

But, honestly [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], I've never seen this as you folks needing to defend anything. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is 100% right in saying that this is what the 5e books expect. It is right there in black and white. I can't really argue with that.

My point has always been that anyone, like me or [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], saying that we have a way that works better for us is immediately dogpiled on as coming from dysfunctional tables or not understanding other approaches or whatever.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Heh. Most folks have never eaten truly authentic sushi. Heck, even here in Japan, most folks haven't eaten really authentic sushi because it's unbelievably expensive. Did your sushi have avocado or tomato? That's from California. Did your sushi have chicken or anything other than fish? Yup, not traditional. Which soy sauce did you use? After all, there's a considerable regional difference in soy sauce and, if you're from outside of Japan, most likely the soy sauce you had was Chinese.

On and on and on.

I've met people who absolutely adore conveyer belt sushi (kainten sushi). But, by and large, that's made with frozen, low quality fish. It's the McDonalds of sushi. Yet its fantastically more popular than actual sushi. Trying to claim that authenticity makes it better doesn't really hold much water since, outside of a very small percentage of people, so few have actually eaten truly authentic sushi.
I think you've stretched the metaphor well beyond its breaking point here.

Some folks like sushi. Some folks like teriyaki chicken sushi. Some folks like avocado sushi. Does that mean that most folks are wrong for liking sushi that isn't authentic? Or only folks who eat traditional sushi are the ones who really know what sushi is? Or that folks are wrong for liking teriyaki chicken sushi but detesting ikura (fish eggs) sushi because they just don't "really understand" or apparently haven't really tried the "real" sushi?
Nah, man, people are free to enjoy what they enjoy.

It's unbelievably arrogant to continuously assume that everyone who tries a particular way of gaming will like it and that if someone doesn't like it, they obviously just haven't done it right. The onetruewayism stench in here is getting very, very thick.
I agree, but no one here has said that if you don't like it, you must not have done it right.

I play the way I do because I like it better this way. Not because it's better for anyone else or following the rules, or runs smoother (although I do think that it does run faster - less steps=runs faster) or anything else. I've tried it the way you and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and co. are talking about and it doesn't work for me. It's slower, and forces the DM into a central position that I DO NOT WANT TO BE IN since the DM now has to constantly ask for rolls rather than just letting the players drive the game.
And that's totally fine. Nothing wrong with that.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
There's a fair amount of variation, and my quickly-typed bullet list isn't meant to be comprehensive.

But seriously. There are over a thousand posts. I think both sides have explained their sides or they aren't being consistent in what they say. I simply run my game differently and find it annoying that people keep telling me that I'm too stupid and ignorant understand the brilliance of their style because if I did I'd agree.
And I simply find it annoying that people keep telling me that I'm telling them they're too stupid and ignorant to understand the brilliance of my style because if they did they'd agree when I have never said that and do not believe it's true.
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
Y'know, I have to apologize for the "talkie talkie" thing. I thought it was funny and cute, totally not meant as a shot or anything like that. I see that it has very much taken on a life of its own, and that's totally my bad. Sorry about that.

When I say, talky talky or talky bits, I'm simply meaning those parts of the game that revolve around the social pillar. As opposed to the hacky bits or looky bits. :p

Yeah, humour is always tough.

But, honestly [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], I've never seen this as you folks needing to defend anything. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is 100% right in saying that this is what the 5e books expect. It is right there in black and white. I can't really argue with that.

My point has always been that anyone, like me or [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], saying that we have a way that works better for us is immediately dogpiled on as coming from dysfunctional tables or not understanding other approaches or whatever.
I’d like to give XP for this, but the final paragraph is too much. You guys were rebutted because you went after goal/approach method complaining of pixel-bitching and talky-talky and how much you hated it when you tried it 20+ years ago. If you’d instead just said, that’s cool but I prefer handling it this way... I don’t think things would have gone so off the rails (so to speak.) So no, I don’t think you don’t get to say that we dogpiled on you. You thoroughly disrespected our preferred method, and now you’re saying it was us that started it? Talk about gaslighting!

Why do I keep reading this thread??!
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I’d like to give XP for this, but the final paragraph is too much. You guys were rebutted because you went after goal/approach method complaining of pixel-bitching and talky-talky and how much you hated it when you tried it 20+ years ago. If you’d instead just said, that’s cool but I prefer handling it this way... I don’t think things would have gone so off the rails (so to speak.) So no, I don’t think you don’t get to say that we dogpiled on you. You thoroughly disrespected our preferred method, and now you’re saying it was us that started it? Talk about gaslighting!

Why do I keep reading this thread??!
I wish I could give this post more than one XP.
 

Hussar

Legend
I’d like to give XP for this, but the final paragraph is too much. You guys were rebutted because you went after goal/approach method complaining of pixel-bitching and talky-talky and how much you hated it when you tried it 20+ years ago. If you’d instead just said, that’s cool but I prefer handling it this way... I don’t think things would have gone so off the rails (so to speak.) So no, I don’t think you don’t get to say that we dogpiled on you. You thoroughly disrespected our preferred method, and now you’re saying it was us that started it? Talk about gaslighting!

Why do I keep reading this thread??!
I do think that people are reading what they want to read. Myself included. Go back to the early posts. While I cannot speak for anyone else, I never "went after" anything. I was pretty clear that I was only speaking for how I played. I even went so far as to invite folks to call my way house ruling if it helped.

IOW, while I might have gotten sucked down into some argument, I certainly started off by saying, "That's cool but I prefer to handle it this way".
 

Advertisement

Top