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: 7590338" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>I don’t. I insist on <em>not</em> assuming the characters are doing things the players haven’t told me they are doing. If they want to listen at the door, peer through the keyhole, abs smell for anything unusual, they should tell me that.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It’s not gibberish that needs decoding, it’s incomplete information. If all you tell me is that you “make a Perception check”, that does not tell me what you wish to accomplish or how. That only tells me that you think your proficiency in Perception is relevant in this situation. Duly noted, but I am not a mind reader, nor am I interested in trying to guess what you want to accomplish that you think your Perception proficiency might help you with in this situation, or how you plan to go about it. Now, I could guess. Given that you’re at a door and you think your Perception is relevant, I can assume you want to know if it’s safe to open the door and you plan to use your senses to try to determine if it is so, maybe by listening, smelling, touching, or tasting. I can probably guess that you don’t plan to lick the door. But do you touch it? Assuming you do opens me up to “but I didn’t say I was touching it!” or touching it springs a trap, and assuming you don’t opens me up to “but I didn’t say I wasn’t touching it!” if you miss information that you would have needed to touch the door to uncover. Besides that, it is not my place to say what your character does. If you want to look through the keyhole, tell me. If you want to touch the door, tell me. I will not make assumptions about what your character is doing. It’s not my role as DM, and overstepping my role can lead to problems.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It’s cool. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I disagree that it’s not a consequence. If you don’t listen at a door, you don’t know if there is anything on the other side. If you do listen, and you hear nothing, you now know that there is nothing making noise on the other side. You have gained information which may lead you to mistakenly believe there is nothing on the other side. Now, I’ll leave that up to the players to decide for their own characters, but personally I consider that a consequence. Something has changed as a result of the attempt failing, and that change is for the worse. Obviously other DMs are going to have different thresholds for what they consider a meaningful consequence.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe it will, maybe it won’t, that’s not for me to decide.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Is there something wrong with resolving those actions sequentially?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure they could. In my experience, however, they don’t tend to. Before I adopted the goal and approach style, players only ever spent Inspiration on death saving throws, and they either never used guidance and/or worked together, or they did so on every roll. With the goal and approach style, players have enough information to consider whether or not to use those resources, and do so when they feel it is appropriate.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So first off, it seems I have misconstrued the way you handle checks, and for that I apologize. There was someone I was discussing this subject with who earlier said something along the lines of “if you try to pick the lock it’s a thieves tools check, if you try to freeze the vials with Magic it’s an Arcana check, if you try to break the chest open, it’s an Athletics check,” essentially suggesting that in the example given, a check had to be made for the trapped chest to be open, and that different approaches would only affect what skill was used. My mistake for conflating that argument with yours. That said, if you don’t tell your players the DC of the check and the consequences for failing, how do you expect them to know if a different approach might have better chances? If all you say is “make a Perception check,” without telling them the DC or what happens if they fail, do you honestly expect them to say, “wait, nevermind, I want to try something else”? Worse, if <em>they</em> say “I make a Perception check. 14.” they’re <em>deffinitely</em> not weighing the risks - they can’t even know whether or not there are risks, let alone what the risks are or if another approach might be less risky.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, different DMs will have different standards for what they consider a meaningful consequence, but personally I consider “I have listened and heard nothing” to be worse than “I have not listened.” That’s a meaningful change in circumstances, for the worse if there is something they might have heard but didn’t.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly. So why would you leave whether or not they know either of those things up to a dice roll?</p><p></p><p></p><p>There are absolutely things that it is not reasonable to know. Sorry, the Raven Queen’s mortal name has been erased from history, you’re not going to come up with a reasonable explanation of how you know it. On the other hand, there are many things that it is perfectly reasonable for your character to know, and I’m not going to say you should have to roll a die to see if you know them. Either it’s something that makes sense for you to know, in which case why allow for the possibility of failing to know it, or it’s something that doesn’t make sense for you to know, in which case why allow for the possibility for you to know it?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, sorry, I mistook you for someone else I was having a similar discussion with upthread.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The statement “Most skill checks would require rolling at some point” speaks to a fundamental difference in the way you and I view skill checks. In my view, all skill checks require a roll, but not all actions require skill checks to resolve. Skill checks aren’t things that are out there in the wild, waiting to be overcome with a high enough roll or bypassed with a clever alternative. They are a means of resolving actions with uncertain outcomes.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But you can’t just isolate the resolution from the action like that. You’re arguing that the DM should have narrated the failure differently, but there shouldn’t have been a failure to narrate in the first place. In order for there to be a failure there needs to be a check, and in order for there to be a check there needs to be an action with an uncertain outcome, which there was not in the example. That was the point of the example - to illustrate the absurdity of calling for checks without taking into account the player’s goal and approach.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok, setting aside the fact that there was no blade trap in the poisoned handle example, if there is a blade trap, it should be Telegraphed so that the players know to look for it, otherwise it’s just a gotcha. I fail to see the problem with working through a series of actions to examine a door, and calling for rolls when there is uncertainty in the outcome. Sounds like the game working as intended to me.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a very strange hill to die on. The Example was a case of illustrative hyperbole, being used to show the kind of scenario that can happen when DMs put the cart before the horse. It’s not even that absurd of an example, I have literally seen such things happen in game, where a player describes an action that should not have a reasonable chance of failing, the DM called for a roll, the player rolled poorly, and the DM narrated the player doing something stupid like tripping to account for the failure the dice said occurred. You cannot say how the DM “should have narrated the failure” without implicitly validating the DM’s decision to call for a roll. It makes no sense to ignore the player’s action and say what the DM should have done “if we all agree a roll was needed” because the point of the example was to present a scenario where we could all agree that a roll wasn’t needed and shouldn’t have been called for.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7590338, member: 6779196"] I don’t. I insist on [i]not[/i] assuming the characters are doing things the players haven’t told me they are doing. If they want to listen at the door, peer through the keyhole, abs smell for anything unusual, they should tell me that. It’s not gibberish that needs decoding, it’s incomplete information. If all you tell me is that you “make a Perception check”, that does not tell me what you wish to accomplish or how. That only tells me that you think your proficiency in Perception is relevant in this situation. Duly noted, but I am not a mind reader, nor am I interested in trying to guess what you want to accomplish that you think your Perception proficiency might help you with in this situation, or how you plan to go about it. Now, I could guess. Given that you’re at a door and you think your Perception is relevant, I can assume you want to know if it’s safe to open the door and you plan to use your senses to try to determine if it is so, maybe by listening, smelling, touching, or tasting. I can probably guess that you don’t plan to lick the door. But do you touch it? Assuming you do opens me up to “but I didn’t say I was touching it!” or touching it springs a trap, and assuming you don’t opens me up to “but I didn’t say I wasn’t touching it!” if you miss information that you would have needed to touch the door to uncover. Besides that, it is not my place to say what your character does. If you want to look through the keyhole, tell me. If you want to touch the door, tell me. I will not make assumptions about what your character is doing. It’s not my role as DM, and overstepping my role can lead to problems. It’s cool. I disagree that it’s not a consequence. If you don’t listen at a door, you don’t know if there is anything on the other side. If you do listen, and you hear nothing, you now know that there is nothing making noise on the other side. You have gained information which may lead you to mistakenly believe there is nothing on the other side. Now, I’ll leave that up to the players to decide for their own characters, but personally I consider that a consequence. Something has changed as a result of the attempt failing, and that change is for the worse. Obviously other DMs are going to have different thresholds for what they consider a meaningful consequence. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t, that’s not for me to decide. Is there something wrong with resolving those actions sequentially? Sure they could. In my experience, however, they don’t tend to. Before I adopted the goal and approach style, players only ever spent Inspiration on death saving throws, and they either never used guidance and/or worked together, or they did so on every roll. With the goal and approach style, players have enough information to consider whether or not to use those resources, and do so when they feel it is appropriate. So first off, it seems I have misconstrued the way you handle checks, and for that I apologize. There was someone I was discussing this subject with who earlier said something along the lines of “if you try to pick the lock it’s a thieves tools check, if you try to freeze the vials with Magic it’s an Arcana check, if you try to break the chest open, it’s an Athletics check,” essentially suggesting that in the example given, a check had to be made for the trapped chest to be open, and that different approaches would only affect what skill was used. My mistake for conflating that argument with yours. That said, if you don’t tell your players the DC of the check and the consequences for failing, how do you expect them to know if a different approach might have better chances? If all you say is “make a Perception check,” without telling them the DC or what happens if they fail, do you honestly expect them to say, “wait, nevermind, I want to try something else”? Worse, if [i]they[/i] say “I make a Perception check. 14.” they’re [i]deffinitely[/i] not weighing the risks - they can’t even know whether or not there are risks, let alone what the risks are or if another approach might be less risky. Again, different DMs will have different standards for what they consider a meaningful consequence, but personally I consider “I have listened and heard nothing” to be worse than “I have not listened.” That’s a meaningful change in circumstances, for the worse if there is something they might have heard but didn’t. Exactly. So why would you leave whether or not they know either of those things up to a dice roll? There are absolutely things that it is not reasonable to know. Sorry, the Raven Queen’s mortal name has been erased from history, you’re not going to come up with a reasonable explanation of how you know it. On the other hand, there are many things that it is perfectly reasonable for your character to know, and I’m not going to say you should have to roll a die to see if you know them. Either it’s something that makes sense for you to know, in which case why allow for the possibility of failing to know it, or it’s something that doesn’t make sense for you to know, in which case why allow for the possibility for you to know it? Again, sorry, I mistook you for someone else I was having a similar discussion with upthread. The statement “Most skill checks would require rolling at some point” speaks to a fundamental difference in the way you and I view skill checks. In my view, all skill checks require a roll, but not all actions require skill checks to resolve. Skill checks aren’t things that are out there in the wild, waiting to be overcome with a high enough roll or bypassed with a clever alternative. They are a means of resolving actions with uncertain outcomes. But you can’t just isolate the resolution from the action like that. You’re arguing that the DM should have narrated the failure differently, but there shouldn’t have been a failure to narrate in the first place. In order for there to be a failure there needs to be a check, and in order for there to be a check there needs to be an action with an uncertain outcome, which there was not in the example. That was the point of the example - to illustrate the absurdity of calling for checks without taking into account the player’s goal and approach. Ok, setting aside the fact that there was no blade trap in the poisoned handle example, if there is a blade trap, it should be Telegraphed so that the players know to look for it, otherwise it’s just a gotcha. I fail to see the problem with working through a series of actions to examine a door, and calling for rolls when there is uncertainty in the outcome. Sounds like the game working as intended to me. This is a very strange hill to die on. The Example was a case of illustrative hyperbole, being used to show the kind of scenario that can happen when DMs put the cart before the horse. It’s not even that absurd of an example, I have literally seen such things happen in game, where a player describes an action that should not have a reasonable chance of failing, the DM called for a roll, the player rolled poorly, and the DM narrated the player doing something stupid like tripping to account for the failure the dice said occurred. You cannot say how the DM “should have narrated the failure” without implicitly validating the DM’s decision to call for a roll. It makes no sense to ignore the player’s action and say what the DM should have done “if we all agree a roll was needed” because the point of the example was to present a scenario where we could all agree that a roll wasn’t needed and shouldn’t have been called for. [/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