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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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: 7590839" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Say, Pot, have you met my friend, Kettle?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you two would get along, you have so much in common.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, that’s one way one might address that concern. Personally, I’d say that “gives away the game,” much more than telling players the DC. If it works for you, have at it, but I prefer my way of doing it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don’t demand that players never say they roll Perception or chastise them for doing so. I ask that they tell me what they want to accomplish and how their character goes about it. They can be as specific and detailed as they like, or as simple and general as they like, so long as they provide me with the two things I need to adequately adjudicate their action without making assumptions or dictating what their character does - namely, a goal and an approach. Saying “I roll Perception” doesn’t provide me with that. Maybe it is enough for you to be comfortable adjudicating an action. Bully for you.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I know you’re not going to believe me when I say this, but it does not take much time at all in my games. It helps that no time is wasted on unnecessary dice rolls. I also don’t build uncertainty - on the contrary, I run the game the way I do to build <em>certainty</em> in my players’ minds, so that they can feel confident in making informed decisions. I have an example a while back of a player who was really concerned about the whole player skill vs character skill thing, until we had a talk about it, she agreed to give it a try, and she loves it. She is the most confident and creative player in my current group when it comes to describing actions.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I get where you’re coming from. I used to feel the same way. Since embracing “the middle path,” I’ve realized that I was worrying too much about giving things away, when in reality, the game works much better (for me, YMMV) when I give the players information. There’s this great Alfred Hitchcock speech where he talks about the importance of giving the audience information in order to build suspense, and I think it applies to D&D as well as filmmaking.</p><p></p><p>To be fair, I think "easy, medium, hard, very hard" can work just as well, since those terms refer to specific DCs. As long as the players know that you’re using those terms that way.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Whatever works for you. I’m not here to tell you your way of doing things is wrong.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well you’re going to get a lot of pushback on that, because the term skill check has a specific meaning within the rules, and you’re using it to mean something else.</p><p></p><p></p><p>A fundamentally flawed premise, because we do not all agree that Insight should be rolled if an NPC is telling the truth.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Then your message is extremely unclear. You have been arguing for an alternative ruling of the result, which is implicitly arguing in favor of the call to resolve the action by way of a dice roll.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, it’s a super weird hill to die on, given that “no, you fail, take damage” was arguably the least contentious part of the example. Sure, the hypothetical DM shouldn’t have said “no, you fail, take damage.” But the greater issue with that ruling is in allowing the possibility of failure in the first place. If you want to argue that DMs should be specific about why actions fail in terms of the narrative, instead of just saying they fail, fine, but the example under discussion is a terrible one to reference to make that point.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7590839, member: 6779196"] Say, Pot, have you met my friend, Kettle? I think you two would get along, you have so much in common. Sure, that’s one way one might address that concern. Personally, I’d say that “gives away the game,” much more than telling players the DC. If it works for you, have at it, but I prefer my way of doing it. I don’t demand that players never say they roll Perception or chastise them for doing so. I ask that they tell me what they want to accomplish and how their character goes about it. They can be as specific and detailed as they like, or as simple and general as they like, so long as they provide me with the two things I need to adequately adjudicate their action without making assumptions or dictating what their character does - namely, a goal and an approach. Saying “I roll Perception” doesn’t provide me with that. Maybe it is enough for you to be comfortable adjudicating an action. Bully for you. I know you’re not going to believe me when I say this, but it does not take much time at all in my games. It helps that no time is wasted on unnecessary dice rolls. I also don’t build uncertainty - on the contrary, I run the game the way I do to build [I]certainty[/I] in my players’ minds, so that they can feel confident in making informed decisions. I have an example a while back of a player who was really concerned about the whole player skill vs character skill thing, until we had a talk about it, she agreed to give it a try, and she loves it. She is the most confident and creative player in my current group when it comes to describing actions. I get where you’re coming from. I used to feel the same way. Since embracing “the middle path,” I’ve realized that I was worrying too much about giving things away, when in reality, the game works much better (for me, YMMV) when I give the players information. There’s this great Alfred Hitchcock speech where he talks about the importance of giving the audience information in order to build suspense, and I think it applies to D&D as well as filmmaking. To be fair, I think "easy, medium, hard, very hard" can work just as well, since those terms refer to specific DCs. As long as the players know that you’re using those terms that way. Whatever works for you. I’m not here to tell you your way of doing things is wrong. Well you’re going to get a lot of pushback on that, because the term skill check has a specific meaning within the rules, and you’re using it to mean something else. A fundamentally flawed premise, because we do not all agree that Insight should be rolled if an NPC is telling the truth. Then your message is extremely unclear. You have been arguing for an alternative ruling of the result, which is implicitly arguing in favor of the call to resolve the action by way of a dice roll. Again, it’s a super weird hill to die on, given that “no, you fail, take damage” was arguably the least contentious part of the example. Sure, the hypothetical DM shouldn’t have said “no, you fail, take damage.” But the greater issue with that ruling is in allowing the possibility of failure in the first place. If you want to argue that DMs should be specific about why actions fail in terms of the narrative, instead of just saying they fail, fine, but the example under discussion is a terrible one to reference to make that point. [/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