Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7583981" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>This confuses me. You've asked why we run the way we do, and asked for us to explain it to you (apparently again), and here you are treating this as if I'm trying to convince you that my way is better. I'm not. I'm answering your questions with how I would run them. If you feel the need to insist that your way is better, you can do that without me. </p><p></p><p>For the record, I also allow off ability skill checks. There's a <em>conversation</em> happening at my table, where the skill used is negotiable via the approach. The players aren't locked into the first thing they say, and they're welcome to petition for a different use if they think it better fits their approach. But, I call for a check, they don't ask for one. They don't want to, because failing a check means a consequence they don't want.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't understand this. Are you attributing this outcome to my style, or yours. It seems odd that you would play this way, given your previous statements, and I certainly don't have this problem, so either you're misunderstanding (again) or I'm very, very confused by what you're trying to say here about your play.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, it is a ridiculously simple example, so complaining that I'd except simple approaches seems like a Catch 22. The approach does not always need to be complicated. However, I'm going to disagree with you that "I roll Insight" is equivalent to "I observe for signs of lying." The outcomes are limited by the latter to what can be observed, while the former may involve back and forth testing or the like. I don't know what you mean your character is doing by "I roll Insight." Perhaps, at your table, there's an assumption that "I roll Insight" means "I observe for signs of lying," but I don't have that assumption. The character could, for example, engage in a probing line of questioning, looking to find inconsistencies in the story, and that would be an approach that also calls for an WIS (Insight) check but has a very different range of outcomes than observing for tells. Approach matters to outcome. I get that you disagree, but I also think you're stuck on resolution of the mechanics, not actual possible outcomes, because if you really think that the possible outcomes between "I observe for signs of lying" is the same as "I engage in a probing line of questioning," then we're at a hard impasse in the ability to communicate.</p><p></p><p>I think that when you say "I disagree" it's shorthand for "I don't play that way." That's fine, but it's not really disagreement, and it's orthogonal to understanding the points I'm making.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The range of possible negative outcomes does not matter to you? So, you'd be fine with "GASP! They've insulted the Duke's son! Call the Guard!" as an outcome to observing a merchant for tells? I doubt it, which means you either didn't read what I wrote and have reflexively kneejerked a response to the first line, or you're really not understanding what I said at all. Which, do you think?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And here you demonstrate that you've failed to understand anything at all. Firstly, I <em>never </em>deny an action declaration. The authority to declare actions is solely in the player's arena. Your character can attempt to scale the sheer wall all you want -- you will fail automatically if it's beyond your ability. Where you think that I refuse to allow such an action declaration is beyond me. What I do is deny any <em>request to make a check</em>. Requiring a goal and approach is not magic phrasing -- I'm not looking for anything specific at all for how the player wishes they're character to try to resolve the issue. They don't have to guess the perfect approach key to fit my solution lock. I need the goal and approach so I can determine what mechanics apply and also what fictional outcomes are possible. I, quite often, don't even have a solution to a challenge in mind when it's posed to the players -- their goals and approaches will shape the story moving forward not because it achieves my pre-planned outcomes but because they change the fiction with their approaches and goals. A merchant lying might actually be a result of an approach and goal, not the challenge. </p><p></p><p>Take the sheer wall, for instance. "I roll a climb check" is roughly equivalent to an approach of just physically climbing, so, yes, these are pretty close. But, if I ask for an approach instead of just nodding and narrating failure to the climb check, the player may be prompted to provide a more detailed approach, like, "I break out my climbers kit and climb the wall by pounding pitons in as handholds." Okay, that changes things, that's possible, but it will be slow and noisy. I have options other than assuming and narrating failure to an asked for check. The player may succeed, in which case they realize their goal, or they may fail, which now, because of fictional positioning, gives me options from "you slip and fall halfway up and barely catch yourself, but your arrows are falling out of your quiver. What do you do?" to "you reach the top alright, but the noise and time you spent pounding in pitons means there's three guards waiting for you, roll initiative." The amount of things I'd have to assume for the player to get to either of those results from "I roll a climb check" is huge and abusive, but such results are quite easy to achieve from a stated goal and approach. </p><p></p><p>For me, the fiction is malleable to the goal and approach. There isn't treasure hidden under the mattress waiting for the perfectly phrased approach to be found, but rather they're treasure hidden in the room somewhere and the approach to searching for it will find it on a success in a location that makes sense for the approach -- if you search under the bed as your approach, and succeed, well, then, there was treasure hidden under the mattress, aren't you the lucky one! If you fail, there's something much nastier under the mattress and no treasure. Or the treasure isn't under the bed, but the time you took looking means there's a wandering monster check. There's a consequence to failure. If there isn't, if the dungeon is clear and we're mopping up details, then "I search the room" finds treasure and we move on to more interesting events.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't, either, as you continue not to understand. If the honesty of the NPC is trivial, then I'm not wasting time on it. If it's not, then there's a consequence for failure that will be based on the fictional positioning and the approach. In other words, if it's in automatic success, nothing was at stake so why should anyone at the table care if there's no uncertainty. If people at the table care because something is at stake, then <em>something is at stake for the roll</em>. There's no need to worry about metagaming and player uncertainty because it does not even come up -- it's either trivial and elided, to the benefit of play, or it's not and something is placed at stake, which means a success is a success (goal realized) but a failure changes the fiction in a negative way and the uncertainty doesn't matter because play has moved on from that point to a worst situation.</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>As soon as you actually understand we can move past this.</p><p></p><p>You do not.</p><p></p><p>You do not understand, and your disagreement is based on you playing a different way, not disagreement with how I play. How could you disagree if you don't even understand it?</p><p></p><p>That's just plain whingy. Be better.</p><p></p><p>Look, I don't care if you play differently from me. As I remarked to someone else, three years ago I played pretty much exactly as you do now, and made many of the same arguments you're making. I did not understand other playstyles (maybe ask me sometime how Blades in the Dark plays, it's even more different) at that time. I agreed with you quite a bit. But, over the last three years, I've had a breakthrough in understanding and changed my play habits. Not because they're better, they're just different, but because this play fixes a lot of the issues I've had and really never could diagnose because I lacked the understanding. That doesn't mean you're wrong, or misinformed, or whatever, you're not. How we play games is pretty idiosyncratic to groups of players, and that's outstanding. I'm ecstatic that you play differently and enjoy it, and I fully understand your play (because it was recently mine). I get it, I really do -- the necessary shift in core concepts to grasp the difference in playstyles is hard; it involves altering some very sacred cows. It was very good for me, and it's good for some others that also really enjoy playing this way, but it's not universally good. So, you do you, but if you keep asking why other people play the way they do and then get huffy because you feel the explanation is attacking your play... well, that's really on you, man, not us.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7583981, member: 16814"] This confuses me. You've asked why we run the way we do, and asked for us to explain it to you (apparently again), and here you are treating this as if I'm trying to convince you that my way is better. I'm not. I'm answering your questions with how I would run them. If you feel the need to insist that your way is better, you can do that without me. For the record, I also allow off ability skill checks. There's a [I]conversation[/I] happening at my table, where the skill used is negotiable via the approach. The players aren't locked into the first thing they say, and they're welcome to petition for a different use if they think it better fits their approach. But, I call for a check, they don't ask for one. They don't want to, because failing a check means a consequence they don't want. I don't understand this. Are you attributing this outcome to my style, or yours. It seems odd that you would play this way, given your previous statements, and I certainly don't have this problem, so either you're misunderstanding (again) or I'm very, very confused by what you're trying to say here about your play. Well, it is a ridiculously simple example, so complaining that I'd except simple approaches seems like a Catch 22. The approach does not always need to be complicated. However, I'm going to disagree with you that "I roll Insight" is equivalent to "I observe for signs of lying." The outcomes are limited by the latter to what can be observed, while the former may involve back and forth testing or the like. I don't know what you mean your character is doing by "I roll Insight." Perhaps, at your table, there's an assumption that "I roll Insight" means "I observe for signs of lying," but I don't have that assumption. The character could, for example, engage in a probing line of questioning, looking to find inconsistencies in the story, and that would be an approach that also calls for an WIS (Insight) check but has a very different range of outcomes than observing for tells. Approach matters to outcome. I get that you disagree, but I also think you're stuck on resolution of the mechanics, not actual possible outcomes, because if you really think that the possible outcomes between "I observe for signs of lying" is the same as "I engage in a probing line of questioning," then we're at a hard impasse in the ability to communicate. I think that when you say "I disagree" it's shorthand for "I don't play that way." That's fine, but it's not really disagreement, and it's orthogonal to understanding the points I'm making. The range of possible negative outcomes does not matter to you? So, you'd be fine with "GASP! They've insulted the Duke's son! Call the Guard!" as an outcome to observing a merchant for tells? I doubt it, which means you either didn't read what I wrote and have reflexively kneejerked a response to the first line, or you're really not understanding what I said at all. Which, do you think? And here you demonstrate that you've failed to understand anything at all. Firstly, I [I]never [/I]deny an action declaration. The authority to declare actions is solely in the player's arena. Your character can attempt to scale the sheer wall all you want -- you will fail automatically if it's beyond your ability. Where you think that I refuse to allow such an action declaration is beyond me. What I do is deny any [I]request to make a check[/I]. Requiring a goal and approach is not magic phrasing -- I'm not looking for anything specific at all for how the player wishes they're character to try to resolve the issue. They don't have to guess the perfect approach key to fit my solution lock. I need the goal and approach so I can determine what mechanics apply and also what fictional outcomes are possible. I, quite often, don't even have a solution to a challenge in mind when it's posed to the players -- their goals and approaches will shape the story moving forward not because it achieves my pre-planned outcomes but because they change the fiction with their approaches and goals. A merchant lying might actually be a result of an approach and goal, not the challenge. Take the sheer wall, for instance. "I roll a climb check" is roughly equivalent to an approach of just physically climbing, so, yes, these are pretty close. But, if I ask for an approach instead of just nodding and narrating failure to the climb check, the player may be prompted to provide a more detailed approach, like, "I break out my climbers kit and climb the wall by pounding pitons in as handholds." Okay, that changes things, that's possible, but it will be slow and noisy. I have options other than assuming and narrating failure to an asked for check. The player may succeed, in which case they realize their goal, or they may fail, which now, because of fictional positioning, gives me options from "you slip and fall halfway up and barely catch yourself, but your arrows are falling out of your quiver. What do you do?" to "you reach the top alright, but the noise and time you spent pounding in pitons means there's three guards waiting for you, roll initiative." The amount of things I'd have to assume for the player to get to either of those results from "I roll a climb check" is huge and abusive, but such results are quite easy to achieve from a stated goal and approach. For me, the fiction is malleable to the goal and approach. There isn't treasure hidden under the mattress waiting for the perfectly phrased approach to be found, but rather they're treasure hidden in the room somewhere and the approach to searching for it will find it on a success in a location that makes sense for the approach -- if you search under the bed as your approach, and succeed, well, then, there was treasure hidden under the mattress, aren't you the lucky one! If you fail, there's something much nastier under the mattress and no treasure. Or the treasure isn't under the bed, but the time you took looking means there's a wandering monster check. There's a consequence to failure. If there isn't, if the dungeon is clear and we're mopping up details, then "I search the room" finds treasure and we move on to more interesting events. I don't, either, as you continue not to understand. If the honesty of the NPC is trivial, then I'm not wasting time on it. If it's not, then there's a consequence for failure that will be based on the fictional positioning and the approach. In other words, if it's in automatic success, nothing was at stake so why should anyone at the table care if there's no uncertainty. If people at the table care because something is at stake, then [I]something is at stake for the roll[/I]. There's no need to worry about metagaming and player uncertainty because it does not even come up -- it's either trivial and elided, to the benefit of play, or it's not and something is placed at stake, which means a success is a success (goal realized) but a failure changes the fiction in a negative way and the uncertainty doesn't matter because play has moved on from that point to a worst situation. As soon as you actually understand we can move past this. You do not. You do not understand, and your disagreement is based on you playing a different way, not disagreement with how I play. How could you disagree if you don't even understand it? That's just plain whingy. Be better. Look, I don't care if you play differently from me. As I remarked to someone else, three years ago I played pretty much exactly as you do now, and made many of the same arguments you're making. I did not understand other playstyles (maybe ask me sometime how Blades in the Dark plays, it's even more different) at that time. I agreed with you quite a bit. But, over the last three years, I've had a breakthrough in understanding and changed my play habits. Not because they're better, they're just different, but because this play fixes a lot of the issues I've had and really never could diagnose because I lacked the understanding. That doesn't mean you're wrong, or misinformed, or whatever, you're not. How we play games is pretty idiosyncratic to groups of players, and that's outstanding. I'm ecstatic that you play differently and enjoy it, and I fully understand your play (because it was recently mine). I get it, I really do -- the necessary shift in core concepts to grasp the difference in playstyles is hard; it involves altering some very sacred cows. It was very good for me, and it's good for some others that also really enjoy playing this way, but it's not universally good. So, you do you, but if you keep asking why other people play the way they do and then get huffy because you feel the explanation is attacking your play... well, that's really on you, man, not us. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
Top