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

[robus]

Surely this horse is bereft of life after all the flogging?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Surely this horse is bereft of life after all the flogging?

Nay!

I mean, "neeeiighhh!"

But, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is saying that there is no choice. That DM centric is the default state and the presumed state of the game. If I'm playing 5e by the rules, then, by default, the rules place me front and center of the game.

So, where's the choice there?

You 'abuse' your Empowerment to let your players drive the game more than a conforming DM might allow. No matter how much (Em)power(ment) the game 'forces' on you, you can just turn around and delegate it to your players, no?

Again, this is just another case of playing silly buggers with semantics.

This is the internet, yes.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
As for acknowledging "weaknesses", sure, goal-and-approach has weaknesses. Poorly implemented, or misunderstood, players may try to "talkie talkie" the DM or think it's "mother may I." Of course, those sorts of DMs and players will try to do that anyway, so honestly I'm not sure how much of a weakness it is.

/snip

So, the only weakness is if someone doesn't do it right. Ok.

/snip

I’m sorry, has anyone said that there is a 100% perfect approach with only strengths and no weaknesses?

Didn't you ask me for cites not so long ago. There's one right there.

And, as far as smooth vs better goes, I'm sorry, but, that's complete bollocks. My game is running smooth=good. My game is running rough=bad. That's plain English. Endless dodges don't actually change that. It's not force, but, rather, default. Please. For all the complaints about misunderstanding, you folks do seem bent on defending some pretty disingenuous points.

Yeah, [MENTION=6801558]robus[/MENTION] is right. The other thread showed me the light. I'm already running it goal:method anyway according to [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], so, well, this conversation is rather pointless.

I did try to unsubscribe once before. We'll see if it sticks this time.

 

[5ekyu]

So, the only weakness is if someone doesn't do it right. Ok.



Didn't you ask me for cites not so long ago. There's one right there.

And, as far as smooth vs better goes, I'm sorry, but, that's complete bollocks. My game is running smooth=good. My game is running rough=bad. That's plain English. Endless dodges don't actually change that. It's not force, but, rather, default. Please. For all the complaints about misunderstanding, you folks do seem bent on defending some pretty disingenuous points.

Yeah, [MENTION=6801558]robus[/MENTION] is right. The other thread showed me the light. I'm already running it goal:method anyway according to [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], so, well, this conversation is rather pointless.

I did try to unsubscribe once before. We'll see if it sticks this time.

I would myself push back on a definition of smooth play for RPGs as following the intended playstyle or rules. There are more than a few RPGs where the rules/playstyle either clash or where the "correct play" is anything but smooth.

At best, smooth to me means that the play flows easily from one beat to the next. Smooth would be quick series of choices and actions resolving quickly as we go through a conflict. If we need to stop multiple times to consult different charts etc, then it's not smooth, even if its the rules as presented.

But really, its boiling down to we need an ENW language lexicon for clear terms we can use to avoid swerving by thesaurus.

Maybe "flarfel" can be the ENW term for "general term for favorable or better in some contexts directly related to the intended purpose and context" as in "fresh fruit is "flarfel" than rotted fruit."

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

I would myself push back on a definition of smooth play for RPGs as following the intended playstyle or rules. There are more than a few RPGs where the rules/playstyle either clash or where the "correct play" is anything but smooth.

At best, smooth to me means that the play flows easily from one beat to the next. Smooth would be quick series of choices and actions resolving quickly as we go through a conflict. If we need to stop multiple times to consult different charts etc, then it's not smooth, even if its the rules as presented.

But really, its boiling down to we need an ENW language lexicon for clear terms we can use to avoid swerving by thesaurus.

Maybe "flarfel" can be the ENW term for "general term for favorable or better in some contexts directly related to the intended purpose and context" as in "fresh fruit is "flarfel" than rotted fruit."

I don't want to continue the argument of whether "smoother" means "better", because it's pointless. Smoother for whom? My games run quite smoothly, thank you very much. Claiming that a particular style is better smoother is a pointless completely subjective judgement call.

I don't have a problem with player statement of intent DM response player action, but if that can be shortened into player stating their intent and asking if their action overcomes the obstacle*. The latter in the vast majority of cases is IMHO a swifter resolution. Faster in my games is smoother because we spend less time discussing minor obstacles.

I guess I could get rid of all minor obstacles, but for certain scenes (chase scenes for example) those minor obstacles can add a lot of depth.

*In my games it really depends on player preference, some players do this others don't. And yes, in a few cases I have to ask for clarification or let the player know it's not possible or whatever, but it's less than 10% ... usually much less.

 

[robus]

Mmm.... I love some good flarfel .... maybe in some pita bread .... a little tzatziki sauce ...

If you're ever in Austin, TX I can heartily recommend Kebabalicious. Best falafel pita I've ever had.

 

[5ekyu]

I don't want to continue the argument of whether "smoother" means "better", because it's pointless. Smoother for whom? My games run quite smoothly, thank you very much. Claiming that a particular style is better smoother is a pointless completely subjective judgement call.

I don't have a problem with player statement of intent DM response player action, but if that can be shortened into player stating their intent and asking if their action overcomes the obstacle*. The latter in the vast majority of cases is IMHO a swifter resolution. Faster in my games is smoother because we spend less time discussing minor obstacles.

I guess I could get rid of all minor obstacles, but for certain scenes (chase scenes for example) those minor obstacles can add a lot of depth.

*In my games it really depends on player preference, some players do this others don't. And yes, in a few cases I have to ask for clarification or let the player know it's not possible or whatever, but it's less than 10% ... usually much less.

On the value of minor obstacles - absolutely. Maybe even more so. It's part of why I often use the term "challenge that matters" to deal with serious "this takes work mechanically speaking to resolve issues- where charsacterctests matter.

A lot of lesser obstacles that don't require that much can be highly valuable but just dont require specific character elements.

Did you stop and help the refugees with blankets, good, resources or just generally show compassion or ignore?

As you rode in, did you stop and engage or listen to the crush of people outside the main gates who are not allowed in - or did you tuck your head and spur the mounts to get thru quickly?

Did you take time to go to the town temple or guard post shortly after arriving?

Did you take time to leave the traveller's wayshrine better than you left it, or worse?

In my games, these and many more things can matter a lot yet none get a telegraphing of risk or expression of stakes and they don't get tossed aside in the interest of"how can we get more done."

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't want to continue the argument of whether "smoother" means "better", because it's pointless. Smoother for whom? My games run quite smoothly, thank you very much. Claiming that a particular style is better smoother is a pointless completely subjective judgement call.

I don't have a problem with player statement of intent DM response player action, but if that can be shortened into player stating their intent and asking if their action overcomes the obstacle*. The latter in the vast majority of cases is IMHO a swifter resolution. Faster in my games is smoother because we spend less time discussing minor obstacles.

I guess I could get rid of all minor obstacles, but for certain scenes (chase scenes for example) those minor obstacles can add a lot of depth.

*In my games it really depends on player preference, some players do this others don't. And yes, in a few cases I have to ask for clarification or let the player know it's not possible or whatever, but it's less than 10% ... usually much less.

This post is a good example of you not inderstanding what's being presented. Minor obstacles are quickly dealt with in my games because they don't require a check at all -- you almost always succeed outright.

And play isn't:
DM[in best Monty Python bridge guardian voice]: what's your goal?@
Player: um, get to the top of the wall.
DM: what's your approach?!
Player: I climb it?
DM: okay, you can pass. Next up is Bob the Fighter. What's your goal?!

Instead, it's:
DM: okay, you've reached the base of the outer wall, which is made of rough stone blocks. You don't see any guards. What do you do?
Player 1: I'm going to study tge wall to determine hiw hard it eould be to climb.
DM: Sure. The rough construction offers lots of hsndholds. It's just a matter of doing it.
Player1: I'll climb the wall, trying to quiet in case therr are guards at the top.
DM: good thing, too! You scale the wall and when you get to the top, there are two hobgoblin guards looking bored. Go ahead and make a DEX check to see if the've noticed you since you were being stealthy.
Player1: I'll use (Stealth) with that. <rolls> Crud, a 12.
DM: you're fine, these guards aren't paying much attention. The guards are chatting in goblin to each other about having to work this shift and are pretty inattentive. They have their swords, but their shields and crossbows are leaning against the oaraoet nearby. What do you do?

 

[Oofta]

This post is a good example of you not inderstanding what's being presented. Minor obstacles are quickly dealt with in my games because they don't require a check at all -- you almost always succeed outright.

And play isn't:
DM[in best Monty Python bridge guardian voice]: what's your goal?@
Player: um, get to the top of the wall.
DM: what's your approach?!
Player: I climb it?
DM: okay, you can pass. Next up is Bob the Fighter. What's your goal?!

Instead, it's:
DM: okay, you've reached the base of the outer wall, which is made of rough stone blocks. You don't see any guards. What do you do?
Player 1: I'm going to study tge wall to determine hiw hard it eould be to climb.
DM: Sure. The rough construction offers lots of hsndholds. It's just a matter of doing it.
Player1: I'll climb the wall, trying to quiet in case therr are guards at the top.
DM: good thing, too! You scale the wall and when you get to the top, there are two hobgoblin guards looking bored. Go ahead and make a DEX check to see if the've noticed you since you were being stealthy.
Player1: I'll use (Stealth) with that. <rolls> Crud, a 12.
DM: you're fine, these guards aren't paying much attention. The guards are chatting in goblin to each other about having to work this shift and are pretty inattentive. They have their swords, but their shields and crossbows are leaning against the oaraoet nearby. What do you do?

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.