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

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
I made no comment on your game or your play style. None. Zero. I have no idea how quick/smooth your games are.

All I'm saying is that arguing about something as subjective as "smoother" is IMHO pointless. What works for me and my table may or may not work for your table.
Oh, I see the game now. You aren't naming people so you can technically claim you aren't talking about someone-specific's play. One wonders, then, what playstyle are you contrasting here when you say, "I don't have a problem with [other playstyle]"? Clearly no playstyle, but that then renders your post unintelligible as your contrasting make believe against your preferred play.

In shorter words: don't buy the vagueness routine, and I similarly don't buy that you've recently acquired understanding.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Oh, I see the game now. You aren't naming people so you can technically claim you aren't talking about someone-specific's play. One wonders, then, what playstyle are you contrasting here when you say, "I don't have a problem with [other playstyle]"? Clearly no playstyle, but that then renders your post unintelligible as your contrasting make believe against your preferred play.

In shorter words: don't buy the vagueness routine, and I similarly don't buy that you've recently acquired understanding.
Seems to me like now you're just looking for an excuse to be offended.

Have a good one.
 

Satyrn

Villager
Naw. The more I see some of the battles that go on, the more I think that many of them are re-creations of past battles. Not in a bad or malicious way, but because sometimes we get so used to fighting, it becomes a reflex.
It's like we're family. :uhoh:
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
This is clearly a completely pointless conversation. Some folks were confused by the reasons behind some other folks choices of how they run the game. Those folks have tried to explain why they choose to run the game the way they do. But apparently any explanation of why anyone might find their playstyle preferable over another is deemed too judgmental of other playstyles. Apparently all playstyles have advantages and disadvantages, but if you talk about the advantages you perceive in your preferred playstyle in comparison to any other playstyle, or the disadvantages you perceive in another playstyle compared to the one you prefer, you’re guilty of one-true-wayism. Sorry, but I’m not interested in trying to explain my preferences and reasons for them without using any language that suggests any qualitative differences might exist between the things I prefer and the things I don’t. I’m out.
 
Last edited:

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
It's like we're family. :uhoh:
If you think about it, any given enworld forum comment thread will, if it goes on long enough, resemble your Thanksgiving dinner.

Sure, it might be a little different this year. Maybe.

But you know the people that will be there. You know you'll be eating Turkey. You know that Uncle Joe will have too much to drink. And you know it will end in yelling, tears, and recriminations.

But, you also know you're going to do it again.... Maybe it's the cranberry, and maybe it's the D&D.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
If you think about it, any given enworld forum comment thread will, if it goes on long enough, resemble your Thanksgiving dinner.

Sure, it might be a little different this year. Maybe.

But you know the people that will be there. You know you'll be eating Turkey. You know that Uncle Joe will have too much to drink. And you know it will end in yelling, tears, and recriminations.

But, you also know you're going to do it again.... Maybe it's the cranberry, and maybe it's the D&D.
Hey, hey, hey... not wait one minute.

Speaking as the old fart uncle who might well drink st our Turkey Slaughterday Feasting...

Yeah, pretty much agree.

No pass the damn corn pudding and another beer.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
I think this is more like Festivus, given all the Airing of Grievances.

Here's hoping subsequent posts and threads are smoother.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Hey, hey, hey... not wait one minute.

Speaking as the old fart uncle who might well drink st our Turkey Slaughterday Feasting...

Yeah, pretty much agree.

No pass the damn corn pudding and another beer.
Pro-tip-

Just drink a few bottle of Wild Turkey.

Then, when people ask why you're all belligerent, say, "'Cuz I had too much turkey!" and you won't be a liar, and they will be mollified, if somewhat confuddled.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
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.
 

Chaosmancer

Villager
This is all a day late thanks to IRL stuff

To reiterate the obvious, I'm not [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION]. Still, I think my response to this question is consistent with what Charlaquin has said upthread: you, the GM, tell me. I mean, it's the GM's job to frame a situation that will be engaging for the players, and if that situation is going to be a lich's gauntlet of death than it's on the GM to find a way of making that engaging rather than just an experience in literalness.

If you, as a GM, want to keep threats and consequences hidden from your players well that's your prerogative. But you can't blame this on the fiction, given that you wrote that!
Why is it not engaging?

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?



See, now you’re talking about combat encounter difficulty, which is a different thing than trap/hazzard telegraphing.
Sure, but when talking about setting up a boss plus lair, they tie into each other. Especially when you insist that I must be fair. To be completely fair, I can't send them against overpowered foes in heavily fortified bases. That isn't fair.

It is also great in every other use of media, because it is compelling.


This is a false dichotomy. There is a whole spectrum of villain motivations between ineffable mastermind who foresees all possible ways the heroes could notice his traps and takes measures to cover them up, and the riddler. There are any number of reasons that the details that telegraph the presence of traps might remain intact. You have chosen to set this scenario up in such a way as to excuse your conscious choice to make the traps in your dungeon impossible to detect. That’s your prerogative if you think that will lead to an enjoyable play experience for you and your players, but personally I wouldn’t want to play that game.
You seem to think I'm working in reverse.

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.

Of course there is a spectrum, but you don't seem to think there is. To you, all traps must be telegraphed, the villain cannot have hidden a trap so well that it is not telegraphed, because that is me working against my players. Therefore, there is no spectrum that includes "not telegraphed" because every trap must be telegraphed, period, no matter what else is true.

Except, we haven’t been discussing realism vs stylization or challenge vs. ease. We’ve been discussing fair challenge vs. unfair challenge. It is entirely possible to design a campaign that is “realistic” (insofar as D&D can be realistic), challenging, and fair. Again, I point to Dark Souls as the classic example of difficult but fair game design. That is in fact exactly what I aim to capture in my games. You’re the one who said that a fair challenge isn’t always desirable. I disagree with that. And that’s fine, you don’t need my permission to run your game any way you want.
You realize, just as an aside, one of the major points of Dark Souls is that you have infinite lives right?

Also, you want to talk about “fair” vs “unfair” but you haven’t really explained anything beyond “the player not knowing all the information if unfair”. With that my only recourse is to assume that the only fair challenge is the transparent one, where the player knows all the pertinent information possible to know, which will be all of it, since you’ll design it so everything is available.

That is why I’m saying, that not every challenge that is engaging and fun is “fair” because the characters aren’t on a level playing field with their opponents. Their opponents hold the edge.

Well, sorry, I don’t think your elf’s identity needs telegraphing. If you thought I would think it did, now you have an example why I don’t think you actually understand my style.
Okay then, what doesn’t get telegraphed? What do you not tell your players when they are about to roll the dice. Because, you keep using vague terms, like “the consequences” and so I am left having to assume you what you mean.

Do you only telegraph clues in the exploration pillar, and never in the social? Do combat encounters get telegraphed? What am I getting wrong?


I literally do not care what you do. You presented my style as if I was telling players things their characters couldn’t possibly know, which I disputed. You gave an example of a consequence the character couldn’t possibly know (the chandelier with the rotten beams thing). I said that I wouldn’t have set it up that way, because I’m not interested in hiding vital decision-making information from my players like that. I’m not “taking you to task” for anything because I literally don’t care what you do, I am responding to misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the way I run the game.
Okay, then give a counter-example.

My example was bad because the I hid too much vital information and it was only hidden because I decided it was.

That would be far more productive than just constantly telling me “But it is only impossible to know because you decided it was impossible to know” which reads as a critic of what I am doing, not a defense of what you are theoretically doing instead.


Failing to dodge at the right time is a failed Dexterity saving throw, that’s not the same thing as what we’ve been talking about, which is letting the players know the potential consequences of their action (when said action has a chance to succeed, chance to fail, and consequence for failure) before making them commit to it. Rolling off the edge is something that can happen due to the game’s real-time physics, and pushing the button too many times and using up more of a consumable than you meant to likewise. These aren’t issues that arise in a pen and paper RPG, they are unique to video games.
Facepalm

Yes, those are mistakes unique to video games. Board games and RPGs have their own mistakes that can be made. Like going forward with an action whose consequences were worse than you thought they would be.


Yeah. Into thinking you were in fact attacking my choice of style. I assume you’re familiar with the idiom, right?
Yes
 

pemerton

Legend
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.
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
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

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Real cranberry sauce is better, but canned cranberry sauce is smoother.
Whddya mean, "real?"

Those are fighting words. How dare you say that one sauce is real?

You'll pry my canned cranberry sauce out of my cold, dead, subjective hands.
 

Chaosmancer

Villager
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.
 

Elfcrusher

Adventurer
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

No flips for you!
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

Villager
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

Legend
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

Villager
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

Legend
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!
 

Advertisement

Top