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

[Chaosmancer]

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?

You say it like they laid it out on the first page "Rule #1 of DnD, Rule #2 of DnD, ect." That isn't how this works.

And, you didn't ask me about what the rules (even though I would be hard pressed to call that section a rule) said, you asked me about what the game said. As my answer should have illustrated, the game and the rules are two different animals. The PHB has no rules for using Concordance to summon a Servitor of the Faerie Court, that's a 3rd party supplement. The DMG has no rules on what reagents are needed to mix a Potion of Fine Fettle, that is a 3rd party supplement.

There is no rule on when to roll the dice, there is advice on that subject, no rules.

If you want to keep on trying this proccess of slowly getting me to agree with your points so that I must accept your perspective as correct, I'd advise we move on from this point, but I do not agree with you here and rephrasing the question is not going to change my mind on that.

Though, because you will inevitably try and ask this anyways, why yes, I do agree that if you change which rules you are playing by the game will be different. Just like if you change the medium you are drawing with the picture will be different.

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.

I'd ask you for an example of a time when the consequence was not obvious to the player, but after talking with you this long I suspect I wouldn't get a straight answer, since you'd want to know more about where my experiences with the question are coming from and if I'd ever tried it myself instead.

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.

I had to look them up, may I assume you aren't talking about the Armored Core games or the Adventures of Cookie and Cream?

Yeah, I've never played Dark Souls. I've enjoyed watching other people play them online, but a few things have driven me off of them. One is personal (involving my sister's ex-boyfriend and him being a complete @!#$%^#@) but other things have turned me off of ever trying them.

One is this constant reference to them as "the game where they telegraph every trap, and if you just look back you'll see exactly how to avoid it". You are a fan, so you realize part of that is simply because the traps never change, right? Everything resets constantly back to the same state. But also, it isn't like Dark Souls is the only game series to ever do that, if you play Prince of Persia and you see holes in the walls, spikes are going to come out of that. If you are paying attention, you'll see them, and if you get caught off-guard then you can look back and see what you did wrong. It is the exact same concept.

But in every case, until you know what to look for, you are going to set off the trap. And what happens when an intelligent enemy sets a trap that uses a trigger for the first time? How many times in Superhero stories do we see the hero get fooled by a robo-duplicate. Sure, after the first time, we and them begin to suspect it, but it works best when it is a surprise, and intelligent enemies work to reduce telegraphing. Some surprises you can't see coming.

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.

Note your value judgement. To you, going in without knowing the consequences is a bad decision. Whether or not the plan works, whether or not they ever find out what the consequences could have been, in your mind going forward without that information is a mistake.

My players also never complain to me about letting them make bad decisions by accident, because I am not responsible for their decisions. Interestingly enough, my players seem to realize that if they make a poor decision and bad things happen as a result of that, then it is because they made a decision, not because I chose to not step in and prevent their decision. They are responsible for their character's actions, not me.

 

[Manbearcat]

"Meaningful Consequence"

My take on this will always append "upon the gamestate" to that. Because they don't spell it out in the section on Using Ability Scores, here is the likely best reference point for what the designers meant by "meaningful consequences."

DMG p 27

In constructing a narrative, beware of "false action," or action for its own sake. False action doesn't move a story forward, engage characters, or cause them to change. Many action movies suffer from false action, in which car chases, gunfights, and explosions abound but do little more than inconvenience the characters and eventually bore the audience with their repetition and dearth of meaningful stakes.

I think this is a good working definition that is cribbed from many-a-modern-game.

If the gamestate isn't changed in some appreciable way (if the arrangement of the fiction and the actual table time we spend conversing and rolling dice barely notices a blip on its collective radar screen), "false action" and "consequences without meaning" are what has just transpired.

Whether you think "false action" or "consequences without meaning" have some kind of other utility (I get that some people find these instances of play "immersion enhancing" or something to that effect) is another matter (a gamestate neutral matter).

 

[iserith]

You say it like they laid it out on the first page "Rule #1 of DnD, Rule #2 of DnD, ect." That isn't how this works.

...

There is no rule on when to roll the dice, there is advice on that subject, no rules.

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?

...why yes, I do agree that if you change which rules you are playing by the game will be different.

Great. I'm glad we agree on this.

 

[Hussar]

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?



Great. I'm glad we agree on this.

Or, conversely, we could look at the entire set as advice and not hard and fast rules. Y'know, the way we're told to look at them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You say it like they laid it out on the first page "Rule #1 of DnD, Rule #2 of DnD, ect." That isn't how this works.

Page 3 of the Basic Rules pdf, anyway. Under "How to Play," though the Introduction on Page 2 also alludes to it pretty clearly. But, you're right, it's not on Page 1. Page 1 is title & credits.

 

[iserith]

Or, conversely, we could look at the entire set as advice and not hard and fast rules. Y'know, the way we're told to look at them.

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."

 

[Oofta]

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.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It is also true, however, that the rules serve the DM (and by extension the group) and not the other way around.

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.

Well, would you look at that: Common ground!

{end thread}

 

[iserith]

Well, would you look at that: Common ground!

{end thread}

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'd ask you for an example of a time when the consequence was not obvious to the player, but after talking with you this long I suspect I wouldn't get a straight answer, since you'd want to know more about where my experiences with the question are coming from and if I'd ever tried it myself instead.

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.

I had to look them up, may I assume you aren't talking about the Armored Core games or the Adventures of Cookie and Cream?

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.

Yeah, I've never played Dark Souls. I've enjoyed watching other people play them online, but a few things have driven me off of them. One is personal (involving my sister's ex-boyfriend and him being a complete @!#$%^#@) but other things have turned me off of ever trying them.

One is this constant reference to them as "the game where they telegraph every trap, and if you just look back you'll see exactly how to avoid it". You are a fan, so you realize part of that is simply because the traps never change, right? Everything resets constantly back to the same state.

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.

But also, it isn't like Dark Souls is the only game series to ever do that, if you play Prince of Persia and you see holes in the walls, spikes are going to come out of that. If you are paying attention, you'll see them, and if you get caught off-guard then you can look back and see what you did wrong. It is the exact same concept.

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. And it's no surprise. Avoiding a trap because you noticed it makes you feel smart, and gives you a little shot of dopamine. Falling into a trap always feels bad, but it feels less bad if you can clearly see where it was you who made the mistake, not the game putting you into an unfair situation. The reason I use From Software's Soulslike games as my go-to example is because they are widely known for this, and this way of thinking permeates their design on a large scale. It's been said that where a lot of modern games challenge the players' reflexes (look at Cuphead for a good example of this), Soulslikes challenge their situational awareness, and because of this, they are famous for being difficult-but-fair. This type of difficult-but-fair, awareness-based challenge is something I look to emulate in my D&D games.

But in every case, until you know what to look for, you are going to set off the trap.

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."

And what happens when an intelligent enemy sets a trap that uses a trigger for the first time? How many times in Superhero stories do we see the hero get fooled by a robo-duplicate. Sure, after the first time, we and them begin to suspect it, but it works best when it is a surprise, and intelligent enemies work to reduce telegraphing. Some surprises you can't see 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.

Note your value judgement. To you, going in without knowing the consequences is a bad decision. Whether or not the plan works, whether or not they ever find out what the consequences could have been, in your mind going forward without that information is a mistake.

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.

My players also never complain to me about letting them make bad decisions by accident, because I am not responsible for their decisions. Interestingly enough, my players seem to realize that if they make a poor decision and bad things happen as a result of that, then it is because they made a decision, not because I chose to not step in and prevent their decision. They are responsible for their character's actions, not me.

Great! Glad to hear your way works well for you.