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="iserith" data-source="post: 7589923" data-attributes="member: 97077"><p>If the players are not performing their role of describing what they want to do, then it's really just the DM building the story. The players are just in the room.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think there is some confusion here. The players don't describe how he lich king is killed or what happens when the character fails to disarm the trap - the DM does that. The player describes the goal (kill the lich king, disarm the trap) and the approach (cast lightning bolt and target it <em>here</em>, use thieves' tools to disable the pressure plate). The player does NOT ask to make an ability check. An ability check is not a task and asking to roll a d20 is not good strategy.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't recall the specifics of the example and I don't remember really engaging in the poisoned doorknob example. I do know, however, I've taken no offense.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is no "should." Only "could" or "might." You can choose to play dumb, of course, but I don't think that's a good expectation for a DM to have of the players. Nor do I think it's good challenge design to have the difficulty completely hinge on ignorance. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Asking to roll is dangerous, generally speaking, because the d20 is swingy and unreliable. If there are consequences of failure (which is a requirement for there to be a roll in the first place), why are you inviting a d20 to potentially kill you? Now, obviously that outcome is probably unlikely with most rolls to recall lore or make deductions based on available clues. I'm just stating a general principle.</p><p></p><p>And again, there is no "should," only "could" or "might." So you could describe a task to recall lore or make deductions, if you want, and that's going to generally be a way to mitigate the danger of bad assumptions. As for how you know the sage read anything about black puddings, that's for the player to decide - this is the player bringing backstory to the foreground and fleshing out the character. The ability check is testing recall or deductive reasoning, not whether your character has been exposed to the knowledge before. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There are two criteria for the DM calling for an ability check: The task must have an uncertain outcome (not an outright success or failure) and must have a meaningful consequence for failure. The player cannot ask to roll a check and arguably should not want to roll (since automatic success is better than risk). There is no support for players asking to roll in the rules for D&D 5e. That is D&D 3e or 4e legacy thinking.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Think about it this way: If you decide that your character doesn't know anything about trolls OR you decide your character does know stuff about trolls, but you fail your attempt to recall lore, are you still prevented from hitting it with a fire bolt spell? No, you are not. Thus, you don't even have to declare that your character is a monster expert. You can just act. But if you want to make sure that the troll you're attacking isn't one that will explode into a fireball when you hit it with a fire bolt (perhaps because the DM telegraphed that something was off about *this* troll), now you might want to be cautious and try to recall lore about *this* troll or deduce how it's different from available clues.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7589923, member: 97077"] If the players are not performing their role of describing what they want to do, then it's really just the DM building the story. The players are just in the room. I think there is some confusion here. The players don't describe how he lich king is killed or what happens when the character fails to disarm the trap - the DM does that. The player describes the goal (kill the lich king, disarm the trap) and the approach (cast lightning bolt and target it [i]here[/i], use thieves' tools to disable the pressure plate). The player does NOT ask to make an ability check. An ability check is not a task and asking to roll a d20 is not good strategy. I don't recall the specifics of the example and I don't remember really engaging in the poisoned doorknob example. I do know, however, I've taken no offense. There is no "should." Only "could" or "might." You can choose to play dumb, of course, but I don't think that's a good expectation for a DM to have of the players. Nor do I think it's good challenge design to have the difficulty completely hinge on ignorance. Asking to roll is dangerous, generally speaking, because the d20 is swingy and unreliable. If there are consequences of failure (which is a requirement for there to be a roll in the first place), why are you inviting a d20 to potentially kill you? Now, obviously that outcome is probably unlikely with most rolls to recall lore or make deductions based on available clues. I'm just stating a general principle. And again, there is no "should," only "could" or "might." So you could describe a task to recall lore or make deductions, if you want, and that's going to generally be a way to mitigate the danger of bad assumptions. As for how you know the sage read anything about black puddings, that's for the player to decide - this is the player bringing backstory to the foreground and fleshing out the character. The ability check is testing recall or deductive reasoning, not whether your character has been exposed to the knowledge before. There are two criteria for the DM calling for an ability check: The task must have an uncertain outcome (not an outright success or failure) and must have a meaningful consequence for failure. The player cannot ask to roll a check and arguably should not want to roll (since automatic success is better than risk). There is no support for players asking to roll in the rules for D&D 5e. That is D&D 3e or 4e legacy thinking. Think about it this way: If you decide that your character doesn't know anything about trolls OR you decide your character does know stuff about trolls, but you fail your attempt to recall lore, are you still prevented from hitting it with a fire bolt spell? No, you are not. Thus, you don't even have to declare that your character is a monster expert. You can just act. But if you want to make sure that the troll you're attacking isn't one that will explode into a fireball when you hit it with a fire bolt (perhaps because the DM telegraphed that something was off about *this* troll), now you might want to be cautious and try to recall lore about *this* troll or deduce how it's different from available clues. [/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