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="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7589932" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Then you are the one confused, because that is what you are telling me my players should be doing. </p><p></p><p>I said originally that the reason I added the extra flair to my description all those pages ago, was because my players aren't always willing or good at <strong><em><u>describing</u></em></strong> what happens. So, I take over that responsibility, and build the narrative. </p><p></p><p>And my players aren't playing the game because I do that. Despite the fact that I never once said my players do not tell me what they do and I must tell them what their character's are doing in any given moment. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My players do, and asking to roll perception to see an ambush is a task. They are looking for an ambush, perception is the skill for looking and listening for hidden things. Asking to roll investigation for hidden doors is a task. They are searching an area, investigation is the skill for searching. Asking to roll deception to convince the king they don't have the McGuffin is a task. They are lying about something in their possession, and the skill for lying is deception. </p><p></p><p>You can repeat "Asking for a random result instead of seeing if the DM will just give you what you want is a horrible strategy" for another few hundred pages. That doesn't mean my players are not allowed to do so. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Who says it "completely hinges on ignorance"? </p><p></p><p>I know the only way to truly kill a Flame skull is to sprinkle the remains with holy water. No matter what character I make, this is a thing I know. </p><p></p><p>Maybe they wanted this to be a cool moment for the cleric, to have them act as the holy person of the group. But my Barbarian from the Gladiator pits knew the answer before any even thought to ask the question. </p><p></p><p>I will also guarantee that across about 20 different players I am aware of, I can only think of two besides myself who might know that. And that is because both of them have also been DMs for years. </p><p></p><p>I have enough advantages as a player, why shouldn't I try and limit myself in terms of knowledge, by asking the DM if they are okay with me knowing certain facts? Why does this seem to flabbergast people so much? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And round and round the circle we go. </p><p></p><p>"Meaningful consequence" meaning that the failure must make the situation worse. If my understanding of this conversation has gotten me anywhere. It cannot mean that failure results in no change. Even if no change is the logical conclusion of failure. If no change would be the consequence of failure, the character either fails or succeeds with no roll. </p><p></p><p>Players post a guard for night watch in the inn. I will not call a perception check to see if they hear their neighbor being murdered. If they succeed, they will find the dead body. If they fail, the body is discovered in the morning. There is no meaningful consequence for failure, so I decide what I want to happen. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Also, about legacy thinking. No. It isn't. </p><p></p><p>Read 3.X, never played it. Only ever played one game of 4e. </p><p></p><p>I ask for a check, my players ask for checks. People at conventions who have never played DnD before ask for checks. We are not wrong. The game doesn't care if people say "Can I roll perception?" </p><p></p><p>You care, you'll quote the rulebook at me to try and convince me the game cares, but it doesn't. Gameplay works just fine either way. Nothing breaks. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See, trolls are too easy. </p><p></p><p>I know Bargheists get dragged to Hell if they get too near a big enough fire. </p><p></p><p>I know Minotaurs, per RAW, are formed via cannabalism. </p><p></p><p>I know hags, per RAW, give birth via eating babies. </p><p></p><p>I know Wood Woads, per RAW, are created by a guardian of the forest having their heart ripped out in a ritual. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Not all of these are direct ties into combat actions. Heck, if I'm allowed to know how Hags give birth then a Hag introducing the party to her Daughter could very well lead to horror. But if the DM doesn't know that then my reaction makes no sense, because that isn't the case here. Or maybe that is the reaction they want, but only so they can reverse it on us. IT depends on if they read that specific section of the lore, agreed with it, and remembered it. </p><p></p><p>This isn't about "do I counter Troll regeneration with fire or pretend I don't know DnD 101" this can be highly specific lore that changes how we approach entire sections of the campaign.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7589932, member: 6801228"] Then you are the one confused, because that is what you are telling me my players should be doing. I said originally that the reason I added the extra flair to my description all those pages ago, was because my players aren't always willing or good at [B][I][U]describing[/U][/I][/B] what happens. So, I take over that responsibility, and build the narrative. And my players aren't playing the game because I do that. Despite the fact that I never once said my players do not tell me what they do and I must tell them what their character's are doing in any given moment. My players do, and asking to roll perception to see an ambush is a task. They are looking for an ambush, perception is the skill for looking and listening for hidden things. Asking to roll investigation for hidden doors is a task. They are searching an area, investigation is the skill for searching. Asking to roll deception to convince the king they don't have the McGuffin is a task. They are lying about something in their possession, and the skill for lying is deception. You can repeat "Asking for a random result instead of seeing if the DM will just give you what you want is a horrible strategy" for another few hundred pages. That doesn't mean my players are not allowed to do so. Who says it "completely hinges on ignorance"? I know the only way to truly kill a Flame skull is to sprinkle the remains with holy water. No matter what character I make, this is a thing I know. Maybe they wanted this to be a cool moment for the cleric, to have them act as the holy person of the group. But my Barbarian from the Gladiator pits knew the answer before any even thought to ask the question. I will also guarantee that across about 20 different players I am aware of, I can only think of two besides myself who might know that. And that is because both of them have also been DMs for years. I have enough advantages as a player, why shouldn't I try and limit myself in terms of knowledge, by asking the DM if they are okay with me knowing certain facts? Why does this seem to flabbergast people so much? And round and round the circle we go. "Meaningful consequence" meaning that the failure must make the situation worse. If my understanding of this conversation has gotten me anywhere. It cannot mean that failure results in no change. Even if no change is the logical conclusion of failure. If no change would be the consequence of failure, the character either fails or succeeds with no roll. Players post a guard for night watch in the inn. I will not call a perception check to see if they hear their neighbor being murdered. If they succeed, they will find the dead body. If they fail, the body is discovered in the morning. There is no meaningful consequence for failure, so I decide what I want to happen. Also, about legacy thinking. No. It isn't. Read 3.X, never played it. Only ever played one game of 4e. I ask for a check, my players ask for checks. People at conventions who have never played DnD before ask for checks. We are not wrong. The game doesn't care if people say "Can I roll perception?" You care, you'll quote the rulebook at me to try and convince me the game cares, but it doesn't. Gameplay works just fine either way. Nothing breaks. See, trolls are too easy. I know Bargheists get dragged to Hell if they get too near a big enough fire. I know Minotaurs, per RAW, are formed via cannabalism. I know hags, per RAW, give birth via eating babies. I know Wood Woads, per RAW, are created by a guardian of the forest having their heart ripped out in a ritual. Not all of these are direct ties into combat actions. Heck, if I'm allowed to know how Hags give birth then a Hag introducing the party to her Daughter could very well lead to horror. But if the DM doesn't know that then my reaction makes no sense, because that isn't the case here. Or maybe that is the reaction they want, but only so they can reverse it on us. IT depends on if they read that specific section of the lore, agreed with it, and remembered it. This isn't about "do I counter Troll regeneration with fire or pretend I don't know DnD 101" this can be highly specific lore that changes how we approach entire sections of the campaign. [/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