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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7589939" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Why do they want to “roll Perception”? Shouldn’t they want to find out if there’s an ambush waiting on the other side? If that’s what they want, I would think listening at the door or peering through the keyhole would be a more effective approach than “rolled my perception.”</p><p></p><p></p><p>Wh.... what?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok, let’s break this down. The player’s goal is to find out if there is something on the other side of the door waiting to ambush them. The character’s approach is to press their ear to the door and listen. If there is not anything waiting on the other side, or if whatever is on the other side doesn’t make any sound (maybe it’s an ooze, or there’d a Silence spell active), there is no uncertainty. The characters don’t hear anything, and you tell that to the players. If there is something waiting on the other side, the approach does have a possibility of success (they might hear the monsters on the other side.) If the monsters on the other side are making no attempt to be quiet, then there is no possibility of failure. The character hears them, and you tell the players that. If the monsters on the other side are trying to be quiet, then there is a possibility of failure (the character might hear it, they might not.) In that case, you need to determine what changes as a result of them failing? If nothing changes, then there’s no point in rolling, just let them succeed. If something does change, then we have appropriate dramatic tension to call for a roll to resolve it. So, does anything change as a result of listening at the door and not hearing the monsters on the other side? Yes, actually. If they don’t check, they don’t know if there is anything on the other side or not. But if they try and fail, then they have gained new information - that they did not hear anything. They might proceed under the false impression that there is nothing on the other side. So, roll Dexterity (Stealth) for the monsters or use their passive Dexterity (Stealth) to set the Perception DC and tell your players what’s at stake. “Ok, that will be a DC [whatever] Wisdom check - plus Perception if you’re proficient. If you fail, you won’t hear anything that might be on the other side, which will leave you surprised if you’re attacked. What do you do?” That gives the players the ability to make an informed decision. Do they take the risk? Do they cast Gidance or spend Inspiration to mitigate the risk? Do they decide the risk isn’t worth it and try a different approach? It’s up to them. Now they are succeeding or failing based on their decisions, not based on the whims of a d20 they had no choice but to roll.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So, Knowledge skills are weird. It’s kind of tricky to fit wanting to know more about something into D&D 5e’s framework of the DM describing a scenario, the player’s describing what their characters do, and the DM determining the results of those actions (with the help of a dice roll if necessary), and describing the new scenario. Because knowing about stuff isn’t really an action. You can kind of make it one if you really want to (see Iserith’s preferred, “I think back to my days as an apprentice studying magical glyphs to see if I recall anything relevant about this symbol” style of declaration.) But it’s awkward any way you slice it. There are many different ways that those of us who use the “middle path” method of action resolution handle knowledge checks. My way is pretty nonstandard, so I’m not going to get into it here, to avoid further complicating this conversation. Suffice to say, what you are describing here is not how I handle knowledge checks.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don’t think that moniker is particularly representative of my camp, but I don’t call for rolls when failure doesn’t have direct consequences, if that’s what you mean.</p><p></p><p></p><p>If it is information that I would be comfortable giving the players with a successful check, what harm is done by giving it to them without a check? If it is information that I would not be comfortable giving them with a successful check, then why would a check to gain that information be an option?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have never met a player who cares how long something took in in-game time, unless time was a limited resource. Players will gladly have their characters sit around doing nothing for 8 hours to get a few spell slots back if you let them, they don’t really care whether they busted the door down immediately or “eventually.” If the extra time a failure takes them gets them a step closer to a roll for random encounters, then they care. But then the failure had a consequence. Time can absolutely be a consequence, but only if the DM makes it so.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You just answered your own question. If that bothers you, put some time constraints in your dungeons, boom, suddenly every attempt to pick a lock has a consequence for failure.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I believe that players wanting to roll dice is a learned behavior from games where dice rolls present an opportunity to succeed rather than a risk of failure. If you’re used to Dexterity checks opening locked doors when you roll high and not changing anything when you roll low, of course you want to roll dice. On the other hand, when picking locks is what opens locked doors and Dexterity checks are used to determine whether or not something bad happens when you attempt to pick the lock, you don’t want to roll dice. You want to pick locks without having to roll dice.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But you see what you’ve done here? By deciding that a check is needed to open the locked door, you’ve decided that any attempt to open it has an uncertain outcome. And that’s just not always the case. Some ways of trying to open a locked door are certain to fail (shouting at it). Some are certain to succeed (casting knock). Some are certain to succeed <em>eventually</em> if nothing stops you before you finish (smashing it down). But since checks are meant to resolve actions with uncertain outcomes and you’ve decided this door requires a check to open, you are forcing uncertainty into approaches that may not be uncertain.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. So you do agree that there are some ways to go about accomplishing a goal that do not involve any uncertainty.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, but you said when the handle is poisoned and I describe using a cloth to wipe it off, but you called for a check and narrate me just glancing at the handle and not noticing anything when I didn’t roll high enough, despite the fact that I explicitly said I was wiping it with a cloth. That would be like if I said I had my pet giant knock down the door, you asked me to make a check, and since I rolled a 1 you said the giant missed the door and hit the wall instead.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7589939, member: 6779196"] Why do they want to “roll Perception”? Shouldn’t they want to find out if there’s an ambush waiting on the other side? If that’s what they want, I would think listening at the door or peering through the keyhole would be a more effective approach than “rolled my perception.” Wh.... what? Ok, let’s break this down. The player’s goal is to find out if there is something on the other side of the door waiting to ambush them. The character’s approach is to press their ear to the door and listen. If there is not anything waiting on the other side, or if whatever is on the other side doesn’t make any sound (maybe it’s an ooze, or there’d a Silence spell active), there is no uncertainty. The characters don’t hear anything, and you tell that to the players. If there is something waiting on the other side, the approach does have a possibility of success (they might hear the monsters on the other side.) If the monsters on the other side are making no attempt to be quiet, then there is no possibility of failure. The character hears them, and you tell the players that. If the monsters on the other side are trying to be quiet, then there is a possibility of failure (the character might hear it, they might not.) In that case, you need to determine what changes as a result of them failing? If nothing changes, then there’s no point in rolling, just let them succeed. If something does change, then we have appropriate dramatic tension to call for a roll to resolve it. So, does anything change as a result of listening at the door and not hearing the monsters on the other side? Yes, actually. If they don’t check, they don’t know if there is anything on the other side or not. But if they try and fail, then they have gained new information - that they did not hear anything. They might proceed under the false impression that there is nothing on the other side. So, roll Dexterity (Stealth) for the monsters or use their passive Dexterity (Stealth) to set the Perception DC and tell your players what’s at stake. “Ok, that will be a DC [whatever] Wisdom check - plus Perception if you’re proficient. If you fail, you won’t hear anything that might be on the other side, which will leave you surprised if you’re attacked. What do you do?” That gives the players the ability to make an informed decision. Do they take the risk? Do they cast Gidance or spend Inspiration to mitigate the risk? Do they decide the risk isn’t worth it and try a different approach? It’s up to them. Now they are succeeding or failing based on their decisions, not based on the whims of a d20 they had no choice but to roll. So, Knowledge skills are weird. It’s kind of tricky to fit wanting to know more about something into D&D 5e’s framework of the DM describing a scenario, the player’s describing what their characters do, and the DM determining the results of those actions (with the help of a dice roll if necessary), and describing the new scenario. Because knowing about stuff isn’t really an action. You can kind of make it one if you really want to (see Iserith’s preferred, “I think back to my days as an apprentice studying magical glyphs to see if I recall anything relevant about this symbol” style of declaration.) But it’s awkward any way you slice it. There are many different ways that those of us who use the “middle path” method of action resolution handle knowledge checks. My way is pretty nonstandard, so I’m not going to get into it here, to avoid further complicating this conversation. Suffice to say, what you are describing here is not how I handle knowledge checks. I don’t think that moniker is particularly representative of my camp, but I don’t call for rolls when failure doesn’t have direct consequences, if that’s what you mean. If it is information that I would be comfortable giving the players with a successful check, what harm is done by giving it to them without a check? If it is information that I would not be comfortable giving them with a successful check, then why would a check to gain that information be an option? I have never met a player who cares how long something took in in-game time, unless time was a limited resource. Players will gladly have their characters sit around doing nothing for 8 hours to get a few spell slots back if you let them, they don’t really care whether they busted the door down immediately or “eventually.” If the extra time a failure takes them gets them a step closer to a roll for random encounters, then they care. But then the failure had a consequence. Time can absolutely be a consequence, but only if the DM makes it so. You just answered your own question. If that bothers you, put some time constraints in your dungeons, boom, suddenly every attempt to pick a lock has a consequence for failure. I believe that players wanting to roll dice is a learned behavior from games where dice rolls present an opportunity to succeed rather than a risk of failure. If you’re used to Dexterity checks opening locked doors when you roll high and not changing anything when you roll low, of course you want to roll dice. On the other hand, when picking locks is what opens locked doors and Dexterity checks are used to determine whether or not something bad happens when you attempt to pick the lock, you don’t want to roll dice. You want to pick locks without having to roll dice. But you see what you’ve done here? By deciding that a check is needed to open the locked door, you’ve decided that any attempt to open it has an uncertain outcome. And that’s just not always the case. Some ways of trying to open a locked door are certain to fail (shouting at it). Some are certain to succeed (casting knock). Some are certain to succeed [i]eventually[/i] if nothing stops you before you finish (smashing it down). But since checks are meant to resolve actions with uncertain outcomes and you’ve decided this door requires a check to open, you are forcing uncertainty into approaches that may not be uncertain. Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. So you do agree that there are some ways to go about accomplishing a goal that do not involve any uncertainty. Right, but you said when the handle is poisoned and I describe using a cloth to wipe it off, but you called for a check and narrate me just glancing at the handle and not noticing anything when I didn’t roll high enough, despite the fact that I explicitly said I was wiping it with a cloth. That would be like if I said I had my pet giant knock down the door, you asked me to make a check, and since I rolled a 1 you said the giant missed the door and hit the wall instead. [/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