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

[pemerton]

for certain character that type of analysis is perfectly fine. Heck, I do it as a player myself. But not everyone wants to play that way. Sometimes players want to be caught off guard instead of making a cost-beenfit analysis for every roll of the dice.

<snip>

to me, if you say you tell the player the consequences of their actions, so they can make a more informed decision and not get caught off-guard by knowledge they didn't have (ala Hitchcock) then that means to me that when they are about to jump over the pit you tell them that if they fail they will fall on the hidden spikes coated with poison in the bottom of the pit.

<snip>

After all, knowing there are spikes and poison below is the same as knowing there is a bomb under the table, and when the players go to roll, they know exactly what the stakes are. But to me, that is revealing far more about the scenario than they have any reasonable way of knowing, without them having tested things out.

<snip>

If my players want to be cautious and look for answers, to investigate and try and piece together clues about their surroundings, then they are more than welcome to.

<snip>

However, I'm not going to force that mind set on them and I'm not going to assume they would be happier analysising everything. If they do not ask questions and just charge forward, then I assume their character is not asking questions and is just charging forward.

I can only speak for myself.

To me, you are the one who is making "analysis" a focus of play, by requiring "testing things out" in order to establish what is at stake in the play of the game.

My approach is the opposite: the players choices about PC build, thematic and goal orientation, etc, establish what is at stake, and then I as GM build that into the ingame situation. A player can choose to play his/her PC as analytic, or reckless, but either way the player knows that his/her interests/thematic concerns will be at stake in the game. They don't have to choose between playing an "analytic" PC or alternatively guessing what the GM might have in mind.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I've been to grad school (PhD Astrophysics, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology).

Einstein had always believed, like pretty much every other scientist of is time, in the Newtonian clockwork universe, where a single cause A always mapped to a single effect B. His own research into quantum mechanics directly contradicted that belief, by showing that a cause could lead to multiple effects, with no way to determine which - randomness was fundamental to the universe, whether you accept the Copenhagen Interpretation or not (personally, I lean towards the "many worlds" interpretation).

In recent years the rise in religious fundamentalism has lead to attempts to explain away observations and restore the clockwork universe, but that belongs with the flat earthers a climate change deniers. People tend to believe what they want to believe, and try to adjust the evidence to fit. Einstein was better than that by allowing the evidence to challenge his core beliefs.

But the bottom line is randomness is part of the universe, and outcomes are fundamentally unknowable. D&D's dice rolling is a fair way to simulate that.

Just like a teacher to bring religion to a physics fight. (Sorry, that wasn't very good, but I was trying to make a funny based on the "knife to a gun fight" saying...)

As the Bell Inequality...and subsequent experiments confirming the Bell Inequality...demonstrate, either quantum is wrong (or at least not complete), or relativity is violated. That's what I mean when I say the Copenhagen Interpretation is crumbling, even if many physicists don't want to acknowledge that.

(And it's odd that you support the Everett hypothesis, because that contradicts "fundamental randomness of the universe.")

 

[robus]

As the Bell Inequality...and subsequent experiments confirming the Bell Inequality...demonstrate, either quantum is wrong (or at least not complete), or relativity is violated. That's what I mean when I say the Copenhagen Interpretation is crumbling, even if many physicists don't want to acknowledge that.

Off topic: I'm not a physicist, but I've been enjoying following the resurgence of interest in De Broglie's Pilot Wave Theory/Bohmian Mechanics.

Back to the thread...

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So unless you’re roleplaying as a photon...

Oooo... is that a new race or a new class? Or area we now talking about race-class duality of PCs? No such thing since BECMI, as far as I'm aware!

 

[Charlaquin]

Oooo... is that a new race or a new class? Or area we now talking about race-class duality of PCs? No such thing since BECMI, as far as I'm aware!

They behave like a Class in some cases and like a Race in others.

 

[Guest 6801328]

They behave like a Class in some cases and like a Race in others.

But never at the same time.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There’sa reason the Newtonian model was so broadly accepted for so long. The probabilistic behavior of quantum particles is not generally noticeable in our everyday experience, outside of experiments specifically designed to demonstrate it, and even those experiments have predictable results. So unless you’re roleplaying as a photon, no, dice aren’t an accurate way to represent physics in the real world. Which is perfectly ok, because it’s a roleplaying game, not a quantum physics simulator.

I would say that the reason the Newtonian model was accepted for so long (if you can call 200 years "long") is that people like to believe that their actions are meaningful and the outcomes predicable.

And sure, macro-scale physics might not seem to be much influenced by interactions on the quantum scale, but the brains of living beings are.

 

[Chaosmancer]

But you do agree that the DM judges the efficacy of the approach to the goal, correct?

If we are going to play it this way, sure. The DM is the one who decides what happens after the player declares their actions, and as such they must determine how effective that approach is based off a variety of factors.

And you also accept, even if you do not agree, that the game tells us to call for rolls only when there's a meaningful consequence for failure?

Nope, the game tells me nothing of the sort.

The rules give some suggestions to that end, but the game is what myself and my players make of it. Just as I would disagree that "the game" tells me that a rogue gets a 1d6 sneak attack ability at level one, I disagree that "the game" tells me there must be meaningful consequences for failure before rolling the dice. The rules suggest it, but I am free to do what I like to make the game more enjoyable for myself and my players.

I mean, if I was going to put hidden poisoned spikes at the bottom of a pit, I’d probably telegraph that with an earlier pit where the spikes were not hidden - maybe with the mechanism that hides them visibly jammed. I want to provide players with the opportunity to pick up on clues, and use that knowledge to avoid future danger or assure future success by making smart choices based on that knowledge, not just by getting lucky rolls. I want them to fall into traps and go “Oh! I totally could have avoided that if I had noticed/remembered/thought about [whatever]!” not to just take surprise damage because they didn’t decide to roll a Perception check on this door in particular, or because they got a low roll. This is what I mean when I say, my style aims to put success and failure in the players’ hands rather than the dice’s.

So, sure, if for some reason there’s a pit containing poisoned spikes that the PCs couldn’t reasonably be aware of, no, I’m not going to tell them they’ll fall on the poison spikes they don’t know are there on a failure. But that’s also just not a scenario that’s likely to arise in my games. Again, you already have an example more Germaine to my games: “breaking the door down will alert nearby creatures to your presence,” not “the ogre on the other side of the door will hear you.”

If all you are meaning with "tell them the consequences of failure" is to remind them of the obvious, then I would have far less issue with it at the table. I can't say it would never get aggravating, but that would require sitting at your table to determine for certain.

However, everything else you say seems that it really wants to take the majority of surprise out of the game. If the players are paying attention there will never be a time when they are caught off-guard, you have laid out every clue possible to point out to them what is dangerous and requires extra attention and what is simply window dressing that has no bearing on what they are doing.

I find the idea of that mildly boring. I mean, I love puzzling things out as much as the next guy, and I'm sure you build a mean plot that will keep things moving, but some of my best memories of these games is the moment something I had no way of seeing show up and the scramble to solve it now. That seems harder to come across in a game where everything has been laid out for me to solve beforehand.

Nobody’s forcing mindsets on anyone here. If my players don’t ask questions and charge forward, great, that’s the action I’ll adjudicate. If in my adjudication I determine that the action they are rushing into has a chance of success, chance of failure, and consequence, I’ll tell them what might happen if they fail, and what DC they need to beat with what Attribute to avoid that outcome. Whether they decide to follow through or reconsider is 100% up to them.

That ignores some basic psychology though.

See, if they rush forward and things bad things happen, they may look back and decide next time they aren't going to rush forward. They made a decision, there was immediate repercussions. This might change how they act in the future or act as character growth for them.

If they rush forward, you stop them, tell them the consequences, suddenly they have a choice. Continue doing what they wanted to do, ignoring the potential consequences, or back off and think about it. They must confront this, because you have stopped them and gated their action behind a second decision set, and they must choose to either consider their actions or ignore the consequences. They can no longer just go forward, they must go forward after consciously weighing that they are willing to take the risks associated with that action.

Fundamentally, you have taken control of their character and changed how they act, because you are determining they must slow down and consider the consequences.

I can only speak for myself.

To me, you are the one who is making "analysis" a focus of play, by requiring "testing things out" in order to establish what is at stake in the play of the game.

My approach is the opposite: the players choices about PC build, thematic and goal orientation, etc, establish what is at stake, and then I as GM build that into the ingame situation. A player can choose to play his/her PC as analytic, or reckless, but either way the player knows that his/her interests/thematic concerns will be at stake in the game. They don't have to choose between playing an "analytic" PC or alternatively guessing what the GM might have in mind.

You are going to have to explain this to me. How is not telling the players the immediate consequences of their actions making analysis a focus of play and making them choose between being analytic and guessing what I have in mind?

If a player wants to take time to study a situation, they can make that choice. IF they do not, they can make that choice. I'm not making anything a focus, I'm simply running the game and letting them make the decisions they want to make.

 

[iserith]

If we are going to play it this way, sure. The DM is the one who decides what happens after the player declares their actions, and as such they must determine how effective that approach is based off a variety of factors.

Great. I'm glad we agree on this.

Nope, the game tells me nothing of the sort.

The rules give some suggestions to that end, but the game is what myself and my players make of it. Just as I would disagree that "the game" tells me that a rogue gets a 1d6 sneak attack ability at level one, I disagree that "the game" tells me there must be meaningful consequences for failure before rolling the dice. The rules suggest it, but I am free to do what I like to make the game more enjoyable for myself and my players.

It does though. It's right there in writing, plain as day, and there's no need to deny it. Whether or not you implement that rule, however, is a different story. And if someone doesn't implement that rule, it changes the play experience accordingly. Would you agree with that?

 

[Charlaquin]

If all you are meaning with "tell them the consequences of failure" is to remind them of the obvious, then I would have far less issue with it at the table. I can't say it would never get aggravating, but that would require sitting at your table to determine for certain.

I remind the players of what consequences their characters should be able to ascertain, which may or may not be obvious to the players. Usually it is, but on the occasions that it isn’t, the players tend to be glad I did.

However, everything else you say seems that it really wants to take the majority of surprise out of the game. If the players are paying attention there will never be a time when they are caught off-guard, you have laid out every clue possible to point out to them what is dangerous and requires extra attention and what is simply window dressing that has no bearing on what they are doing.

I find the idea of that mildly boring. I mean, I love puzzling things out as much as the next guy, and I'm sure you build a mean plot that will keep things moving, but some of my best memories of these games is the moment something I had no way of seeing show up and the scramble to solve it now. That seems harder to come across in a game where everything has been laid out for me to solve beforehand.

Do you like From Software games? They’re a good example of the kind of feel I aim to capture. Where, sure, you may be surprised by a trap or hazzard, but when you are you can think back and realize what you missed that could have tipped you off. I find that infinitely more interesting than just taking damage from something I could never have anticipated and my only recourse from is a lucky Dexterity save. If that’s not to your taste though, that’s fine, my games probably wouldn’t be for you.

That ignores some basic psychology though.

See, if they rush forward and things bad things happen, they may look back and decide next time they aren't going to rush forward. They made a decision, there was immediate repercussions. This might change how they act in the future or act as character growth for them.

If they rush forward, you stop them, tell them the consequences, suddenly they have a choice. Continue doing what they wanted to do, ignoring the potential consequences, or back off and think about it. They must confront this, because you have stopped them and gated their action behind a second decision set, and they must choose to either consider their actions or ignore the consequences. They can no longer just go forward, they must go forward after consciously weighing that they are willing to take the risks associated with that action.

Fundamentally, you have taken control of their character and changed how they act, because you are determining they must slow down and consider the consequences.

See, I’d say I’m utilizing, rather than ignoring, psychology, to allow you the opportunity to consciously decide if you want your character to behave recklessly, rather than risk you doing so by mistake, due to lack of information. And again, I’ve never had a player protest this. I’ve had players grumble about other aspects of my DMing, most often the fact that I require them to state an approach in terms of what their characters do, but I’ve never had anyone complain that I’m preventing them from making bad decisions by accident. Turns out, players don’t tend to like making bad decisions by accident.