Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7583914" data-attributes="member: 16814">Yes, I'd have to say you broadly misunderstand the playstyle.  Firstly, I wouldn't adjudicate that statement at all.  It's not the player's position to suggest mechanics, but the DM's.  It's the player's prerogative to declare actions, and "make an Insight check" is not an action.  I prefer clear goal and approach, so I can fairly adjudicate the action.  I'll touch on this more in a moment. Secondly, what I as GM know about the situation does not result in no check.  My job, as GM, is to take the player's declared action (preferably with clear goal and approach), and then determine if the outcome is automatically successful, automatically fails, or is uncertain.  If uncertain, my job is to call for an appropriate check and set a DC.  Then, after that is determined, I narrate the results and the play cycle begins again.  To do this, I have a few core principles:1.  Assume the PCs are competent -- this means no stupid gotchas because the player didn't precisely state an approach that the PC wouldn't do.2.  Don't be a dick -- this relates to 1, but also means I'm not looking to make PCs (and their players) look bad in my game.  It's a heroic game, they should be heroes.3.  Don't ask for a check if there is no consequence for failure -- this is a bit more nuanced than a first read would seem.  It doesn't mean automatic success, although it could, it also means don't waste game time asking for checks that will just be repeated until successful.  If you ask for a check, and it fails, something bad should happen as a result.  If you can't think of anything, or if nothing bad fits the situation, you can just narrate taking a few  moments and succeeding.  4.  Foreshadow danger/conflicts-- this doesn't mean I need to set things up sessions in advance, but if there is a danger or conflict, don't hide it.  If the NPC is lying, describe their behavior so that it clues the players in that something is wrong here.  If there's a trap, describe a difference in the scene that indicates danger -- odd scratches, discolorations, ash, previous victims, etc.  If you do this, you will not waste time with players being uncertain and acting paranoid by checking everything for gotchas.Following the above, I cannot resolve your question at all.  This is because: A) there's a lack of an action declaration involving a goal and approach.  I have a goal, but how are they doing this?  Insight is a mechanic, not an action.  This can be as simple as "I observe them for signs of lying" to more complicated, or even well off the insight path such as, "I yell at him I think he's lying and he better start telling me the truth!" prompted an Intimidate check.B)  there's a lack of fictional positioning to the example to allow me to successfully adjudicate what's at stake.  Is the person the player's are questioning going to help the players?  If so, then a failed check may result in them becoming angry at being questioned and withdrawing their assistance. ("I see you don't believe me.  Fine, I shall take my business elsewhere.")  Perhaps the players are risking loss of face because this is a prominent personage and they're in public? ("<GASP>  [PC NAME] just insulted the Baron's son by suggesting he's lying!"}  Or, maybe, this person is a run of the mill merchant and nothing is at stake, in which case, sure, I just narrate a success so we can move to more interesting scenes (and I make a note to not frame scenes lacking importance).  But, there's none of this in the example, so I can't say.To sum up, I ask for approach and goal not because I'm looking for a magic phrase to win the puzzle I've set, but because I need those to properly decide what mechanic applies and to narrate the outcome in a compelling manner regardless of success or failure.  What I know as GM is not the determining factor, it's an input into the matrix.  I try very hard to frame the PCs into conflicts, ie. situations where there's something at stake.  We elide the stuff that's not at stake.  For example, during downtime, players can buy anything they want from the PHB at book cost and sell anything they have and 50% value, they just need to inform me they are doing so.  But, if they want a better price, they can find a seller/buyer and negotiate one, but then run the risk of a higher cost due to shortages or even running afoul of the authorities (Surprise! Stolen goods!).  If I ask for a roll, there's a consequence for failure.  In this regard, it's always best to find a way to not have to roll (which is pretty easy most of the time).  For shopping, one PC has established a good relationship with a merchant by doing favors for them, and so they automatically have a 25% shift in cost in their favor by going to this merchant, but that merchant's stock is determined randomly and will only buy 1,000 gp of merchandise a week.</blockquote>

Verification