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="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7586615" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>Well, folks have been divided over "balance", often rather strongly, and what it is since before the word existed, so thats not surprising at all.</p><p></p><p>Exactly. For my money the idea of trying to put labels on either side in a debate - be it "roleplayers" or rollplayers", "metagamer vs immersive", "We choose the middle path" vs "the other paths" etc etc etc usually serves to do little than to divide and dismiss. </p><p></p><p>What matters much more than the label we drape ourselves in or plaster onto others is what happens in play and how the folks involve enjoy it or not. Actual results and outcomes so far outweigh the labels and theory that to me its almost at best pointless and usually counter-productive to grab for the label gun at every opportunity or option.</p><p></p><p>EDIT TO ADD: But on a related note, thats where the DMG presentation of the three paths IMo fails to be very useful at all. It provides two rather extreme examples and one rather broad undefined one with none of them having any rules suggestions or guidance within them. </p><p></p><p>i think it would have been better to define three different paths, all equally playable - a heavy medium and light option for "checks" with some actual guidance for which of the options and a package of options to include in them. </p><p></p><p>maybe check light uses the auto-success variants, the success at cost and uses the ability score/background proficiencies instead of the normal with optional rules for take-10 on the fly etc. That gives players and Gm a lot of pre-fab understood ways to see "dont need no roll here" and sets a higher bar for when a check is called for and even swaps the power of the success at setback to the player to a large degree.</p><p></p><p>meanwhile check heavy forbids passive checks and throwqs out the auto-success rules etc.</p><p></p><p>and middle path uses a mixture of them.</p><p></p><p>They then encourage you to pick and choose not just between the packages presented but the various parts to get to the campaign style you want between "checks" and "no checks".</p><p></p><p> That would have been useful. It would have required little more than tagging many of the "role of the dice" options with a HML tag for which ones of the three styles they felt it was appropriate for.</p><p></p><p>that would be what i call a guide's job, not just a list of options but more.</p><p></p><p>but thats likely me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7586615, member: 6919838"] Well, folks have been divided over "balance", often rather strongly, and what it is since before the word existed, so thats not surprising at all. Exactly. For my money the idea of trying to put labels on either side in a debate - be it "roleplayers" or rollplayers", "metagamer vs immersive", "We choose the middle path" vs "the other paths" etc etc etc usually serves to do little than to divide and dismiss. What matters much more than the label we drape ourselves in or plaster onto others is what happens in play and how the folks involve enjoy it or not. Actual results and outcomes so far outweigh the labels and theory that to me its almost at best pointless and usually counter-productive to grab for the label gun at every opportunity or option. EDIT TO ADD: But on a related note, thats where the DMG presentation of the three paths IMo fails to be very useful at all. It provides two rather extreme examples and one rather broad undefined one with none of them having any rules suggestions or guidance within them. i think it would have been better to define three different paths, all equally playable - a heavy medium and light option for "checks" with some actual guidance for which of the options and a package of options to include in them. maybe check light uses the auto-success variants, the success at cost and uses the ability score/background proficiencies instead of the normal with optional rules for take-10 on the fly etc. That gives players and Gm a lot of pre-fab understood ways to see "dont need no roll here" and sets a higher bar for when a check is called for and even swaps the power of the success at setback to the player to a large degree. meanwhile check heavy forbids passive checks and throwqs out the auto-success rules etc. and middle path uses a mixture of them. They then encourage you to pick and choose not just between the packages presented but the various parts to get to the campaign style you want between "checks" and "no checks". That would have been useful. It would have required little more than tagging many of the "role of the dice" options with a HML tag for which ones of the three styles they felt it was appropriate for. that would be what i call a guide's job, not just a list of options but more. but thats likely me. [/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