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: 7588395" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>"Bluntly, few approaches will result in automatic success, so having a good skill bonus and using approaches that leverage those skills is immensely beneficial when the very likely skill check is asked for."</p><p></p><p>That seems to be lacking necessary info to be a necessarily valid conclusion or even a meaningful description that tells us anything. That is I think part of the communication issue here, very ambiguous claims.</p><p></p><p>So let me ask, did you mean "few challenges will be seen in play to be resolved by auto-success approaches" or did you mean "challenges will have only a few approaches that lead to auto-success"?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If there are only 1 or 2 approaches per "challenge that matters" that produce auto-success without checks and character stats coming into play, but lots more of approaches for each that would require checks too, you could still see every single "challenge that matter" resolved by players choosing those 1-2 autos never once having to "leverage those skills".</p><p></p><p>That's why I broke it down to how often do you as GM setup (or do your players see resolution in play) of the challenges that matter having (being solved by) non-skill auto-success "approach wins" vs "leverage skills checks immensely wins?</p><p></p><p>Might be good to separate out vombat challenges thst mstter from non-combat, given even some of the "approach wins advocates seem to see combat challenges as "uncertain due to the whole roll-a-1 thing. </p><p></p><p>My baseline estimate in my games was roughly </p><p>60% require/resolved-by some form of checks (possibly passive, possibly auto-success due to stats (DMG proficiency.), approach/method reflected by advantage/disadvantage)</p><p>20%* require/resolved-by either some form of checks (as above) *or* some key approach/methods.</p><p>20%* require/resolved a combo of checks (as above) *and* some key approach methods used in tandem.</p><p></p><p>Practically none of my "challenges that matter" are resolvable by method/approach alone regardless of stats.</p><p></p><p>* Honestly this 20-20 varies and is more WAG than anything else. Not more than 30-10 or 10-30 I figure.</p><p></p><p>So, this means my folks see in play when it matters that most of the time the charscter's skills that the players chose to highlight and the player's in character choices go hand in hand to reach an outcome. They see in a few cases both are needed and in a few cases they can get by on method/approach slone.</p><p></p><p>That sounds like a very different thing and gameplay outcome than one gets when an "approach gm" goes into how it's actually "cheating yourself" to go mostly with skill checks for outcome as a player.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7588395, member: 6919838"] "Bluntly, few approaches will result in automatic success, so having a good skill bonus and using approaches that leverage those skills is immensely beneficial when the very likely skill check is asked for." That seems to be lacking necessary info to be a necessarily valid conclusion or even a meaningful description that tells us anything. That is I think part of the communication issue here, very ambiguous claims. So let me ask, did you mean "few challenges will be seen in play to be resolved by auto-success approaches" or did you mean "challenges will have only a few approaches that lead to auto-success"? If there are only 1 or 2 approaches per "challenge that matters" that produce auto-success without checks and character stats coming into play, but lots more of approaches for each that would require checks too, you could still see every single "challenge that matter" resolved by players choosing those 1-2 autos never once having to "leverage those skills". That's why I broke it down to how often do you as GM setup (or do your players see resolution in play) of the challenges that matter having (being solved by) non-skill auto-success "approach wins" vs "leverage skills checks immensely wins? Might be good to separate out vombat challenges thst mstter from non-combat, given even some of the "approach wins advocates seem to see combat challenges as "uncertain due to the whole roll-a-1 thing. My baseline estimate in my games was roughly 60% require/resolved-by some form of checks (possibly passive, possibly auto-success due to stats (DMG proficiency.), approach/method reflected by advantage/disadvantage) 20%* require/resolved-by either some form of checks (as above) *or* some key approach/methods. 20%* require/resolved a combo of checks (as above) *and* some key approach methods used in tandem. Practically none of my "challenges that matter" are resolvable by method/approach alone regardless of stats. * Honestly this 20-20 varies and is more WAG than anything else. Not more than 30-10 or 10-30 I figure. So, this means my folks see in play when it matters that most of the time the charscter's skills that the players chose to highlight and the player's in character choices go hand in hand to reach an outcome. They see in a few cases both are needed and in a few cases they can get by on method/approach slone. That sounds like a very different thing and gameplay outcome than one gets when an "approach gm" goes into how it's actually "cheating yourself" to go mostly with skill checks for outcome as a player. [/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