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: 7590301" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>See, I don't like blanket statements like this. </p><p></p><p>If the player says they use their axe to threaten the merchant, and after they roll I say "You raise your axe menacingly" then I am telling the player what they did, and according to your statement I am overstepping myself as a DM when I do that. </p><p></p><p>But... I'm not. That's just normal DMing. </p><p></p><p>What about if the player says "I intimidate the merchant" And I ask "How? Are you going to threaten him with you axe?" and the player responds, "Sure, that sounds good".</p><p></p><p>Am I overstepping? I gave the player the idea after all. It might as well have been me just saying that's what happened. </p><p></p><p>What if they respond with, "I don't care, just something scary. I'm a dwarf barbarian covered in entrails, I'm sure I'm intimidating enough" and I decide they use their axe?</p><p></p><p></p><p>See, I don't really care to argue with you, but a statement like "If you ever say what the character does, you are wrong" just makes pointless lines in the sand. It doesn't mean what you seem to want it to mean.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You don't care, except to constantly point out that we <strong><u>cannot </u></strong>do it. That in doing so we are not playing the game. That is doing so we are using rules from older editions that have no place in this game. Constantly.</p><p></p><p>But you don't care. </p><p></p><p>Right.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why do I not have to justify myself in knowing something my character might have no reason to know? </p><p></p><p>By this exact line of reasoning, if I had run an adventure path, and knew the secret password into the vault. Then I have no responsibility to justify that knowledge. I can simply act upon it and the DM is obligated to allow it, because they cannot say my character doesn't know secret information.</p><p></p><p>Sure, this plan would clearly fail, because the DM would immediately change the password to something else and giving a false password would do something horrible to us, but that shouldn't mean that I wasn't doing something out of line by utilizing knowledge I have little reason to know, without clearing it with my DM. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am taking this in the best possible light, but I want to point out a negative interpretation of your assertion here. </p><p></p><p>If the game works better, then that means my way is lesser. You are implying that my game is lesser than it could be, because of WORD CHOICE. </p><p></p><p>Not that our actions run differently, not that we are playing under a different style, but because of the order of the words we use in the sentence. </p><p></p><p>You understand that taken from that direction, which I am sure is not your intent, you sound incredibly elitist? </p><p></p><p>You don't care what we do, you just want us to be aware it is lesser than the way you do things. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Taking in game steps... like asking to roll a knowledge check? The very thing this entire series of arguments has stemmed from me saying I do? </p><p></p><p>Oh, sorry, that's doing it wrong. I should ask "To call upon my studies of arcane history for mention of *insert fact here*" instead of saying I'd be rolling a knowledge check.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why do you insist on assuming that by asking for perception they are not listening at the door, peering through the keyhole, and smelling for the odor of blood and iron? </p><p></p><p>The approach of asking for perception is only less effective if you refuse to acknowledge what the character would be doing. Rolling perception isn't gibberish that needs decoding. There are clear ideas of what that means. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Apologies, typing quickly and I forgot a section. This entire example was based off this argument that failing a roll should be worse than not attempting the roll in the first place. </p><p></p><p>So I should have added "add they fail the roll" to the part about rolling perception. That is my error. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And from what I was given to understand in [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] 's post, you are wrong. That is not enough of a consequence to call for roll. If failing the roll is no worse than not rolling, you should not call for a roll. </p><p></p><p>Most players are smart enough to consider silent monsters, considering there are a large number of them in DnD. So, failing to hear anything does not mean they will feel safe. </p><p></p><p>Also, you have cut your players options in less than half. By having them say they listen at the door, you are only considering what they may hear. </p><p></p><p>They will have to give you an entirely separate action and resolution for if they see anything by looking through the keyhole. </p><p></p><p>And then another for feeling the door to see if there is a temperature differential. Or whatever else they may try. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, who says they couldn't mitigate the risk with guidance and the like anyways? Who says they "have no choice" especially since they are asking to roll. Who says they can't try other approaches to give them better chances? </p><p></p><p>You make assumption at your own risk. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except in the example you gave... you just did. You callled for a roll where the only consequence of failure was that they did not hear anything. That is not a direct consequence in the way they were being discussed earlier. That is simply not knowing, and defaulting to the state you were in before the check was wrong, according to the arguments I've been responding to. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why would players not be allowed to know something if they have the background to know of it? </p><p></p><p>Why would players know something that is obscure and took your BBEG 30 years of searching to uncover? </p><p></p><p>I was responding to the idea that simply "have them give a reasonable answer to why they know it" is fundamentally flawed. Reasonable answers are easy to come up with. Which means a clever player could position their character to "reasonably" know everything. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why do you assume that I am adding uncertainty? </p><p></p><p>Why is my thinking that a locked door might require a lockpicking check mean that I am going to allow shouting to work or knock to not work?</p><p></p><p>If an approach is certain to work, then it is certain to work. Whether I imagined lockpicking as their answer or not. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, clearly. </p><p></p><p>Did I ever say that I didn't? But most skill checks would require rolling at some point. If they don't, why are we talking about skill rolls? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because I wasn't responding to the wiping of the handle. I was specifically, in my original post, responding to the poor handling of "You fail" given by the GM. </p><p></p><p>I was offering an alternative to the GM's narration of failure.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But, wiping the handle does not reveal the blade trap. </p><p></p><p>See, you are limiting the players to only using one method. They have to individually ask each different approach, and then you may or may not call for a check on any one of them. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, so I'm only going to respond to this once. </p><p></p><p>It wasn't my example. It was Elfcrusher's I believe and fully called out to be overly sarcastic. </p><p></p><p>I never called for any check, I even said that wiping the handle would have auto-succeeded, which is why I was ignoring the wiping the handle because it made it an unassailable event. </p><p></p><p>The only thing I did to get this pile on was that I thought the way the DM narrated the failure was poor (You failed, take poison damage) and that I would have approached that narration differently, <strong>if we had agreed a roll was needed</strong>.</p><p></p><p>So, I have nothing to defend here, since you are making false accusations of me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7590301, member: 6801228"] See, I don't like blanket statements like this. If the player says they use their axe to threaten the merchant, and after they roll I say "You raise your axe menacingly" then I am telling the player what they did, and according to your statement I am overstepping myself as a DM when I do that. But... I'm not. That's just normal DMing. What about if the player says "I intimidate the merchant" And I ask "How? Are you going to threaten him with you axe?" and the player responds, "Sure, that sounds good". Am I overstepping? I gave the player the idea after all. It might as well have been me just saying that's what happened. What if they respond with, "I don't care, just something scary. I'm a dwarf barbarian covered in entrails, I'm sure I'm intimidating enough" and I decide they use their axe? See, I don't really care to argue with you, but a statement like "If you ever say what the character does, you are wrong" just makes pointless lines in the sand. It doesn't mean what you seem to want it to mean. You don't care, except to constantly point out that we [B][U]cannot [/U][/B]do it. That in doing so we are not playing the game. That is doing so we are using rules from older editions that have no place in this game. Constantly. But you don't care. Right. Why do I not have to justify myself in knowing something my character might have no reason to know? By this exact line of reasoning, if I had run an adventure path, and knew the secret password into the vault. Then I have no responsibility to justify that knowledge. I can simply act upon it and the DM is obligated to allow it, because they cannot say my character doesn't know secret information. Sure, this plan would clearly fail, because the DM would immediately change the password to something else and giving a false password would do something horrible to us, but that shouldn't mean that I wasn't doing something out of line by utilizing knowledge I have little reason to know, without clearing it with my DM. I am taking this in the best possible light, but I want to point out a negative interpretation of your assertion here. If the game works better, then that means my way is lesser. You are implying that my game is lesser than it could be, because of WORD CHOICE. Not that our actions run differently, not that we are playing under a different style, but because of the order of the words we use in the sentence. You understand that taken from that direction, which I am sure is not your intent, you sound incredibly elitist? You don't care what we do, you just want us to be aware it is lesser than the way you do things. Taking in game steps... like asking to roll a knowledge check? The very thing this entire series of arguments has stemmed from me saying I do? Oh, sorry, that's doing it wrong. I should ask "To call upon my studies of arcane history for mention of *insert fact here*" instead of saying I'd be rolling a knowledge check. Why do you insist on assuming that by asking for perception they are not listening at the door, peering through the keyhole, and smelling for the odor of blood and iron? The approach of asking for perception is only less effective if you refuse to acknowledge what the character would be doing. Rolling perception isn't gibberish that needs decoding. There are clear ideas of what that means. Apologies, typing quickly and I forgot a section. This entire example was based off this argument that failing a roll should be worse than not attempting the roll in the first place. So I should have added "add they fail the roll" to the part about rolling perception. That is my error. And from what I was given to understand in [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] 's post, you are wrong. That is not enough of a consequence to call for roll. If failing the roll is no worse than not rolling, you should not call for a roll. Most players are smart enough to consider silent monsters, considering there are a large number of them in DnD. So, failing to hear anything does not mean they will feel safe. Also, you have cut your players options in less than half. By having them say they listen at the door, you are only considering what they may hear. They will have to give you an entirely separate action and resolution for if they see anything by looking through the keyhole. And then another for feeling the door to see if there is a temperature differential. Or whatever else they may try. So, who says they couldn't mitigate the risk with guidance and the like anyways? Who says they "have no choice" especially since they are asking to roll. Who says they can't try other approaches to give them better chances? You make assumption at your own risk. Except in the example you gave... you just did. You callled for a roll where the only consequence of failure was that they did not hear anything. That is not a direct consequence in the way they were being discussed earlier. That is simply not knowing, and defaulting to the state you were in before the check was wrong, according to the arguments I've been responding to. Why would players not be allowed to know something if they have the background to know of it? Why would players know something that is obscure and took your BBEG 30 years of searching to uncover? I was responding to the idea that simply "have them give a reasonable answer to why they know it" is fundamentally flawed. Reasonable answers are easy to come up with. Which means a clever player could position their character to "reasonably" know everything. Why do you assume that I am adding uncertainty? Why is my thinking that a locked door might require a lockpicking check mean that I am going to allow shouting to work or knock to not work? If an approach is certain to work, then it is certain to work. Whether I imagined lockpicking as their answer or not. Yes, clearly. Did I ever say that I didn't? But most skill checks would require rolling at some point. If they don't, why are we talking about skill rolls? Because I wasn't responding to the wiping of the handle. I was specifically, in my original post, responding to the poor handling of "You fail" given by the GM. I was offering an alternative to the GM's narration of failure. But, wiping the handle does not reveal the blade trap. See, you are limiting the players to only using one method. They have to individually ask each different approach, and then you may or may not call for a check on any one of them. Okay, so I'm only going to respond to this once. It wasn't my example. It was Elfcrusher's I believe and fully called out to be overly sarcastic. I never called for any check, I even said that wiping the handle would have auto-succeeded, which is why I was ignoring the wiping the handle because it made it an unassailable event. The only thing I did to get this pile on was that I thought the way the DM narrated the failure was poor (You failed, take poison damage) and that I would have approached that narration differently, [B]if we had agreed a roll was needed[/B]. So, I have nothing to defend here, since you are making false accusations of me. [/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