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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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: 7587650" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Yup. The problem with your assertion here is that this happens pretty much only when the interaction is trivial or unimportant. If it's a crux moment in the game, I'm very unlikely to determine there's no consequence for failure (it's a crux moment) or that there's no uncertainty. Just because you can imagine a situation where it's somehow important if the PC lies and where you think I (or others) won't ask for a check doesn't mean this is a normal or even rare occurrence in our games.</p><p></p><p>Fundamentally, this is one of the reasons I keep telling you that you don't understand the approach -- you make these very bad situations as if they're commonly occurring.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not following this at all -- presumably the player rolled, and can read the dice, and if it's a very low roll they will know they failed? Hmm. Perhaps you always do this contested, so the player doesn't know the NPC's check value because it's behind the screen? Okay, well, that's interesting, because then I don't actually understand what the roll represents in the fiction -- it would appear that the player doesn't know if they succeed or fail because the hidden result of the NPC check is, well, hidden. So, the outcome isn't made clear to the player, only a result that they do not know if they can trust, in which case, I'm not understanding the role of the roll, here -- it's not resolving uncertainty at all.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Huh?</p><p></p><p></p><p>If the roll doesn't matter (which I thought you said no rolls without consequences for failure?0, how does this save time? What process was hastened by making an unneeded roll? I'm trying to understand, because you keep telling me that how you do it is just like how I do it, but I'm not following it at all. I mean, I know how you do it -- I did it that way for decades. What I don't follow is how you think your way is like my way when it's different and you keep providing examples of how different it is, while telling me it's largely the same and it's just a cosmetic difference.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Why? Why would the barbarian possibly be confused that running into a stone door might hurt? Why would he not know what the rogue just explained about the danger of the trap? What's the consequence of failure for that check -- because this, again, seems to be exactly the same situation as before the check, the barbarian isn't aware of possible dangers.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Avoided skill checks: the second similar trap because the ranger was using a light source. Had the ranger looked at the trapped doors instead of choosing to not to, he'd have discovered the groves automatically (because stopping to examine something rather that walking past it is a different approach).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly -- it has none of the huge bugaboos you imagine our method has. The real difference is that there's not a single die roll that doesn't have a consequence.</p><p></p><p>Later in the dungeon, there's a sarcophagus that had runes etched all around it in a language none of the characters spoke or were familiar with (Primordial). The cleric attempted to discern if there was any religious significance to the runes -- a question I did not prep. I said it'll be harder due to the lack of knowing the language, but since she is a grave cleric and funeral rites are her bag, baby, I set the DC at 15 and the danger was that if there were any wards or protections embedded in the runes, she'd trigger them. She rolled a 1. The binding of the runes (they were there to keep the mummies in) was broken and a fight started. I hadn't planned any of that beforehand, but the player's choice to try to use her priestly knowledge was interesting and I don't refuse reasonable approaches. A danger was introduced to account for the failure state and the dice rolled -- because it seemed uncertain that the cleric could decipher funeral markings in a language she didn't know.</p><p></p><p>This is a key point in how I run -- I do not set solutions, I set problems. The players' approach determines the actual solution, or failure, to the problem. My traps, when set, are problems. The encounter above was a problem of how to deal with trapped mummies who had treasure. I have no idea how my players are going to try to solve these problems, but I have a method -- I clearly set the scene, including elements of the problem (scenes without problems are dealt will 'offstage' in downtime); players tell me how they're engaging the problem; if I think it's uncertain, I call for a roll; and I narrate the results.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7587650, member: 16814"] Yup. The problem with your assertion here is that this happens pretty much only when the interaction is trivial or unimportant. If it's a crux moment in the game, I'm very unlikely to determine there's no consequence for failure (it's a crux moment) or that there's no uncertainty. Just because you can imagine a situation where it's somehow important if the PC lies and where you think I (or others) won't ask for a check doesn't mean this is a normal or even rare occurrence in our games. Fundamentally, this is one of the reasons I keep telling you that you don't understand the approach -- you make these very bad situations as if they're commonly occurring. I'm not following this at all -- presumably the player rolled, and can read the dice, and if it's a very low roll they will know they failed? Hmm. Perhaps you always do this contested, so the player doesn't know the NPC's check value because it's behind the screen? Okay, well, that's interesting, because then I don't actually understand what the roll represents in the fiction -- it would appear that the player doesn't know if they succeed or fail because the hidden result of the NPC check is, well, hidden. So, the outcome isn't made clear to the player, only a result that they do not know if they can trust, in which case, I'm not understanding the role of the roll, here -- it's not resolving uncertainty at all. Huh? If the roll doesn't matter (which I thought you said no rolls without consequences for failure?0, how does this save time? What process was hastened by making an unneeded roll? I'm trying to understand, because you keep telling me that how you do it is just like how I do it, but I'm not following it at all. I mean, I know how you do it -- I did it that way for decades. What I don't follow is how you think your way is like my way when it's different and you keep providing examples of how different it is, while telling me it's largely the same and it's just a cosmetic difference. Why? Why would the barbarian possibly be confused that running into a stone door might hurt? Why would he not know what the rogue just explained about the danger of the trap? What's the consequence of failure for that check -- because this, again, seems to be exactly the same situation as before the check, the barbarian isn't aware of possible dangers. Avoided skill checks: the second similar trap because the ranger was using a light source. Had the ranger looked at the trapped doors instead of choosing to not to, he'd have discovered the groves automatically (because stopping to examine something rather that walking past it is a different approach). Exactly -- it has none of the huge bugaboos you imagine our method has. The real difference is that there's not a single die roll that doesn't have a consequence. Later in the dungeon, there's a sarcophagus that had runes etched all around it in a language none of the characters spoke or were familiar with (Primordial). The cleric attempted to discern if there was any religious significance to the runes -- a question I did not prep. I said it'll be harder due to the lack of knowing the language, but since she is a grave cleric and funeral rites are her bag, baby, I set the DC at 15 and the danger was that if there were any wards or protections embedded in the runes, she'd trigger them. She rolled a 1. The binding of the runes (they were there to keep the mummies in) was broken and a fight started. I hadn't planned any of that beforehand, but the player's choice to try to use her priestly knowledge was interesting and I don't refuse reasonable approaches. A danger was introduced to account for the failure state and the dice rolled -- because it seemed uncertain that the cleric could decipher funeral markings in a language she didn't know. This is a key point in how I run -- I do not set solutions, I set problems. The players' approach determines the actual solution, or failure, to the problem. My traps, when set, are problems. The encounter above was a problem of how to deal with trapped mummies who had treasure. I have no idea how my players are going to try to solve these problems, but I have a method -- I clearly set the scene, including elements of the problem (scenes without problems are dealt will 'offstage' in downtime); players tell me how they're engaging the problem; if I think it's uncertain, I call for a roll; and I narrate the results. [/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