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: 7591296" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>No worries. I was attempting to point out, with a bit of levity, that the frustration with having to constantly defend one's self against the same tired points over and over again runs both ways here. In hindsight, I too came off more bristly than I intended to, and I apologize for that.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think it's important to take into account the context surrounding Isereth's quoting of the passages in question. Isereth is a firm advocate of trying the rules as written first before altering anything, so that one knows how the designers intended the game to be played, and is better equipped to depart from that intent with specific intent. He's not saying "you're doing it wrong, look, here's where the book says so!" He's saying, "here's where D&D 5e tells you how the designers intended play to work. Don't knock it till you've tried it." And I've seen a few commenters say that this style isn't anything new, they played with DMs who did it that way in the 80s, and it wasn't for them. But D&D 5e wasn't out in the 80s. If you haven't tried running <em>D&D 5e</em> that way, you should really give it a shot before you judge it too harshly. It might work out better than you expect it to.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes. "Listen" is a approach and "for an ambush beyond the door" is a goal. I can also tell from "I want to roll perception" that the player thinks their Proficiency in the Perception might be applicable, if there is uncertainty in the result of listening to try to determine if there is an ambush behind the door.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No. "See if I notice an ambush behind the door" is a goal, but no clear approach is indicated in this statement. What does your character <em>do</em> to try to notice an ambush behind the door?</p><p></p><p>No. "See if we can get the drop on them" is a goal, but no clear approach is indicated. I do, however, get the sense that the player is anticipating a potential ambush, and since they seem to think their Proficiency in the Perception skill will be relevant if their action has an uncertain outcome, I'm guessing that "see if we can get the drop on them" isn't really their <em>immediate</em> goal, but a planned goal for a potential future action after they have confirmed or denied their suspicion of an ambush.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>"I want to use my senses" is an approach and "detect if there is an ambush up ahead" is a goal, so I do technically have what I need to adjudicate that action. However, in this case I would clarify first, because I have a feeling the player probably doesn't want to taste the door. Probably something like, "Ok, I'm hearing that you want to determine if there is an ambush ahead, and that you want to use your senses to do so. By 'senses', you mean hearing, smell, touch, <em>and</em> taste?"</p><p></p><p></p><p>Only if you consider "roll perception" to be an approach. It's not. Rolling perception is something the <em>player</em> does to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of the <em>character's</em> action. In order to determine whether or not it is appropriate for the <em>player</em> to roll perception, I need to know what the <em>character</em> is doing that might have an uncertain outcome.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, we are indeed talking about different kinds of certainty here. Of course the players shouldn't be certain they can walk through a dungeon and catch every trap, or that the Duke is behind everything. They should, however, be certain of their immediate environment, their own capabilities, and the likely outcomes of their actions. They should be able to reasonably evaluate their chances of success and risks of failure, so that they can be confident in their decisions. They should be able to trust that the world responds to their actions in a logical and consistent manner.</p><p></p><p></p><p>See, I wouldn't like that. That would undermine my confidence in the consistency of the world. If your players skills and abilities don't consistently behave the same way - if sometimes they can heal torn souls with Channel Divinity and other times they can't - then it's no surprise that they don't wan to describe what their character is actually doing in the world to try to figure out if there are monsters waiting to ambush them. They aren't certain how the world will respond to that action, because sometimes it works one way and sometimes it works another. It's only natural that they would feel the d20 is more reliable than their own sense of what might happen in response to their characters' actions. Which is saying something considering how swingy d20s are.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But action is an English word. "Skill check" is just rules jargon. You're not using a natural-language meaning of a word that also has a specific rules meaning, you're using a rules term to mean something other than what the rules system it comes from says it means.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But your use of "skill check" as interchangeable with the rules term "action" is causing actual confusion. Using the English definition of "action" to describe something that is an action by the english definition but is not an action as defined by the rules of D&D is not.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Just so we're clear, are you saying that people who don't think a roll should be called for to determine whether or not a character who is not lying is lying should not participate in this discussion?</p><p></p><p></p><p>You gave an alternative style of the result of <em>failing</em> on a check that you said you wouldn't allow to fail. Do you not see why that might be confusing?</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's an expression. "A hill to die on" is a cause you defend in spite of significant resistance. Historically, it carries connotations of defending a point with no real tactical value. I'm saying that this point you've chosen to defend to the death doesn't seem to me like a point worth dying for.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Except that coca-cola has nothing to do with mustard on fries. Your alternative style of resolving the action in the example is directly related to the action in the example. You can say "but I would allow wiping the handle to automatically succeed!" until you're blue in the face, but as long as you keep following it up with, "but <em>if we did agree to roll for it</em>, this is what failure should have looked like," the first part doesn't really mean anything. A better analogy would be that if someone used mustard on fries as an example of a bad combination of foods, and you said, "obviously I would put catchup on my fries, but <em>if someone did</em> put mustard on their fries, they should go with dijon." Which kind of mustard is least disgusting on fries was never a point of contention, why are you bringing it up? The whole point was that putting mustard on fries is obviously gross. But the fact that you keep saying "yeah, it's gross, but <em>if</em> you put mustard on fries, you should use dijon!" makes me question if you really do think mustard on fries is gross. I know you keep saying it, but you sure seem insistent that dijon is better than yellow on fries. Almost like you're speaking from experience.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7591296, member: 6779196"] No worries. I was attempting to point out, with a bit of levity, that the frustration with having to constantly defend one's self against the same tired points over and over again runs both ways here. In hindsight, I too came off more bristly than I intended to, and I apologize for that. I think it's important to take into account the context surrounding Isereth's quoting of the passages in question. Isereth is a firm advocate of trying the rules as written first before altering anything, so that one knows how the designers intended the game to be played, and is better equipped to depart from that intent with specific intent. He's not saying "you're doing it wrong, look, here's where the book says so!" He's saying, "here's where D&D 5e tells you how the designers intended play to work. Don't knock it till you've tried it." And I've seen a few commenters say that this style isn't anything new, they played with DMs who did it that way in the 80s, and it wasn't for them. But D&D 5e wasn't out in the 80s. If you haven't tried running [I]D&D 5e[/I] that way, you should really give it a shot before you judge it too harshly. It might work out better than you expect it to. Yes. "Listen" is a approach and "for an ambush beyond the door" is a goal. I can also tell from "I want to roll perception" that the player thinks their Proficiency in the Perception might be applicable, if there is uncertainty in the result of listening to try to determine if there is an ambush behind the door. No. "See if I notice an ambush behind the door" is a goal, but no clear approach is indicated in this statement. What does your character [I]do[/I] to try to notice an ambush behind the door? No. "See if we can get the drop on them" is a goal, but no clear approach is indicated. I do, however, get the sense that the player is anticipating a potential ambush, and since they seem to think their Proficiency in the Perception skill will be relevant if their action has an uncertain outcome, I'm guessing that "see if we can get the drop on them" isn't really their [I]immediate[/I] goal, but a planned goal for a potential future action after they have confirmed or denied their suspicion of an ambush. "I want to use my senses" is an approach and "detect if there is an ambush up ahead" is a goal, so I do technically have what I need to adjudicate that action. However, in this case I would clarify first, because I have a feeling the player probably doesn't want to taste the door. Probably something like, "Ok, I'm hearing that you want to determine if there is an ambush ahead, and that you want to use your senses to do so. By 'senses', you mean hearing, smell, touch, [I]and[/I] taste?" Only if you consider "roll perception" to be an approach. It's not. Rolling perception is something the [I]player[/I] does to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of the [I]character's[/I] action. In order to determine whether or not it is appropriate for the [I]player[/I] to roll perception, I need to know what the [I]character[/I] is doing that might have an uncertain outcome. Yes, we are indeed talking about different kinds of certainty here. Of course the players shouldn't be certain they can walk through a dungeon and catch every trap, or that the Duke is behind everything. They should, however, be certain of their immediate environment, their own capabilities, and the likely outcomes of their actions. They should be able to reasonably evaluate their chances of success and risks of failure, so that they can be confident in their decisions. They should be able to trust that the world responds to their actions in a logical and consistent manner. See, I wouldn't like that. That would undermine my confidence in the consistency of the world. If your players skills and abilities don't consistently behave the same way - if sometimes they can heal torn souls with Channel Divinity and other times they can't - then it's no surprise that they don't wan to describe what their character is actually doing in the world to try to figure out if there are monsters waiting to ambush them. They aren't certain how the world will respond to that action, because sometimes it works one way and sometimes it works another. It's only natural that they would feel the d20 is more reliable than their own sense of what might happen in response to their characters' actions. Which is saying something considering how swingy d20s are. But action is an English word. "Skill check" is just rules jargon. You're not using a natural-language meaning of a word that also has a specific rules meaning, you're using a rules term to mean something other than what the rules system it comes from says it means. But your use of "skill check" as interchangeable with the rules term "action" is causing actual confusion. Using the English definition of "action" to describe something that is an action by the english definition but is not an action as defined by the rules of D&D is not. Just so we're clear, are you saying that people who don't think a roll should be called for to determine whether or not a character who is not lying is lying should not participate in this discussion? You gave an alternative style of the result of [I]failing[/I] on a check that you said you wouldn't allow to fail. Do you not see why that might be confusing? It's an expression. "A hill to die on" is a cause you defend in spite of significant resistance. Historically, it carries connotations of defending a point with no real tactical value. I'm saying that this point you've chosen to defend to the death doesn't seem to me like a point worth dying for. Except that coca-cola has nothing to do with mustard on fries. Your alternative style of resolving the action in the example is directly related to the action in the example. You can say "but I would allow wiping the handle to automatically succeed!" until you're blue in the face, but as long as you keep following it up with, "but [I]if we did agree to roll for it[/I], this is what failure should have looked like," the first part doesn't really mean anything. A better analogy would be that if someone used mustard on fries as an example of a bad combination of foods, and you said, "obviously I would put catchup on my fries, but [I]if someone did[/I] put mustard on their fries, they should go with dijon." Which kind of mustard is least disgusting on fries was never a point of contention, why are you bringing it up? The whole point was that putting mustard on fries is obviously gross. But the fact that you keep saying "yeah, it's gross, but [I]if[/I] you put mustard on fries, you should use dijon!" makes me question if you really do think mustard on fries is gross. I know you keep saying it, but you sure seem insistent that dijon is better than yellow on fries. Almost like you're speaking from experience. [/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