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: 7591591" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Yeah, and I'm a proponent of asking for clarification if the DM needs it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No problem, things always get heated when we talk about things we are passionate about. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See, I would agree with you if it was a few times, or if it was in regards to specific questions. </p><p></p><p>But, if I put an example of someone asking to roll a d20 for a skill, Isereth posts that they aren't allowed to do that. </p><p></p><p>That does not come across as advocating for a playstyle, that comes across as saying the attempt is invalid because of the rules. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Reading through all your negatives, it really seems like you are trying to be ultra-precise. You will not move forward with resolution until you have an action verb that is tied to a specific sense that could be used to perceive something. </p><p></p><p>I'm not that precise, and the only thing you seem intent on avoiding that this may help with is avoiding upsetting your players by resolving something based on an action they might have done. Which is a valid concern, but is not my primary concern when running the game. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think we are getting mixed up with our "uncertainties" again. </p><p></p><p>A cleric can always <u>attempt</u> to heal a soul with channel divinity. It might not work because the damage was caused by a specific threat that left wounds you aren't powerful enough to heal. It might not work because you are standing in the dominion of a being opposed to your deity and your power for miracles is diminished here. Maybe it doesn't work because you couldn't handle the strain of channel so much divine power. </p><p></p><p>The world (at least as well as I can make it) isn't inconsistent. But it isn't spelled out all the time. A paladin is immune to disease, but a magical disease contracted by the paladin almost breaking their oath in the usage of an artifact of Orcus... maybe they aren't immune to THAT. </p><p></p><p>Demons are immune to poison, but are they immune to the Cosmic Serpent's venom? </p><p></p><p>It doesn't make for an inconsistent world, just one larger than the books laid out. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That wasn't what I was saying when this line of discussion came up. </p><p></p><p>I just said not all skill checks need to be rolled, because sometimes a player's abilities would change the roll or negate the roll. </p><p></p><p>If a rogue has reliable talent they cannot roll below a 10. That means their minimum for a check is X. If X is higher than the DC you might not call for a roll. But, Reliable Talent only works for skill checks. If you refuse to call an action that doesn't require a roll a skill check (sorry, ability check, skill checks don't exist per the rules either) then Reliable Talent can't guarentee success. </p><p></p><p>And also, as a side of that conversation, you seemed very concerned that I might know that certain likely actions a player may take would require an ability check. For example, just this morning I had someone roll athletics to tear down a steel vault door. The barbarian player likes destruction like that, so when I put the door their I figured they would try and break it down and it was solid enough they might not be able to. We also just got a rogue, it was a well made door, so trying to pick the lock would be a skill check as well. Knowing those very likely scenarios exist, and that they would likely require skill checks isn't a problem. Yet, it seemed to bother you and this line of discussion spun off. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, like I said, we've moved far beyond the premise of this thread. But, if you are going to get upset at the assumption that a skill check might be called for in a thread that started off about how to resolve skill checks... maybe you should double check your assumptions. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, which is why in that example I specifically called out that fact, and said this was only an example of what I would do <strong><u>if</u></strong> for some bizarre reason we decided to call for a roll anyways. I incorrectly figured that would be enough to make it clear what I was doing. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I know what the phrase means. </p><p></p><p>The point I'm trying to defend... do you even know what it is? </p><p></p><p>I specifically called out that I would have not allowed that roll to fail. So the point I am defending is <strong><u>I DIDN'T SAY THAT</u></strong>. </p><p></p><p>If you think defending yourself against false accusations is a strange hill to die on... </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, dijon mustard is great on fries. </p><p></p><p>So, your entire problem with my statement is that I said "What you did wasn't right, but if we did it, we would at least do this part better"</p><p></p><p>Strange hills indeed.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I can see that, and appreciate it. </p><p></p><p>I also think that sometimes I want to get the drop on the players, and not just the characters.</p><p></p><p>Sure, a failed perception check would mean they don't know what is behind the door, but the telegraphing and very fact that they rolled it means they know <strong>something</strong> is beyond the door. </p><p></p><p>And so they will try and prepare and mitigate the unknown risk. And sometimes that is fine, and sometimes there is a part of me that wants them to panic a little bit, to get completely blindsided by a clever enemy or an unsuspected trap. Not often, not even once every campaign, but sometimes. </p><p></p><p>And if I have an unspoken contract that says that will never happen, I feel just a little more limited than I like.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7591591, member: 6801228"] Yeah, and I'm a proponent of asking for clarification if the DM needs it. No problem, things always get heated when we talk about things we are passionate about. See, I would agree with you if it was a few times, or if it was in regards to specific questions. But, if I put an example of someone asking to roll a d20 for a skill, Isereth posts that they aren't allowed to do that. That does not come across as advocating for a playstyle, that comes across as saying the attempt is invalid because of the rules. Reading through all your negatives, it really seems like you are trying to be ultra-precise. You will not move forward with resolution until you have an action verb that is tied to a specific sense that could be used to perceive something. I'm not that precise, and the only thing you seem intent on avoiding that this may help with is avoiding upsetting your players by resolving something based on an action they might have done. Which is a valid concern, but is not my primary concern when running the game. I think we are getting mixed up with our "uncertainties" again. A cleric can always [U]attempt[/U] to heal a soul with channel divinity. It might not work because the damage was caused by a specific threat that left wounds you aren't powerful enough to heal. It might not work because you are standing in the dominion of a being opposed to your deity and your power for miracles is diminished here. Maybe it doesn't work because you couldn't handle the strain of channel so much divine power. The world (at least as well as I can make it) isn't inconsistent. But it isn't spelled out all the time. A paladin is immune to disease, but a magical disease contracted by the paladin almost breaking their oath in the usage of an artifact of Orcus... maybe they aren't immune to THAT. Demons are immune to poison, but are they immune to the Cosmic Serpent's venom? It doesn't make for an inconsistent world, just one larger than the books laid out. That wasn't what I was saying when this line of discussion came up. I just said not all skill checks need to be rolled, because sometimes a player's abilities would change the roll or negate the roll. If a rogue has reliable talent they cannot roll below a 10. That means their minimum for a check is X. If X is higher than the DC you might not call for a roll. But, Reliable Talent only works for skill checks. If you refuse to call an action that doesn't require a roll a skill check (sorry, ability check, skill checks don't exist per the rules either) then Reliable Talent can't guarentee success. And also, as a side of that conversation, you seemed very concerned that I might know that certain likely actions a player may take would require an ability check. For example, just this morning I had someone roll athletics to tear down a steel vault door. The barbarian player likes destruction like that, so when I put the door their I figured they would try and break it down and it was solid enough they might not be able to. We also just got a rogue, it was a well made door, so trying to pick the lock would be a skill check as well. Knowing those very likely scenarios exist, and that they would likely require skill checks isn't a problem. Yet, it seemed to bother you and this line of discussion spun off. No, like I said, we've moved far beyond the premise of this thread. But, if you are going to get upset at the assumption that a skill check might be called for in a thread that started off about how to resolve skill checks... maybe you should double check your assumptions. Yeah, which is why in that example I specifically called out that fact, and said this was only an example of what I would do [B][U]if[/U][/B] for some bizarre reason we decided to call for a roll anyways. I incorrectly figured that would be enough to make it clear what I was doing. I know what the phrase means. The point I'm trying to defend... do you even know what it is? I specifically called out that I would have not allowed that roll to fail. So the point I am defending is [B][U]I DIDN'T SAY THAT[/U][/B]. If you think defending yourself against false accusations is a strange hill to die on... Actually, dijon mustard is great on fries. So, your entire problem with my statement is that I said "What you did wasn't right, but if we did it, we would at least do this part better" Strange hills indeed. I can see that, and appreciate it. I also think that sometimes I want to get the drop on the players, and not just the characters. Sure, a failed perception check would mean they don't know what is behind the door, but the telegraphing and very fact that they rolled it means they know [B]something[/B] is beyond the door. And so they will try and prepare and mitigate the unknown risk. And sometimes that is fine, and sometimes there is a part of me that wants them to panic a little bit, to get completely blindsided by a clever enemy or an unsuspected trap. Not often, not even once every campaign, but sometimes. And if I have an unspoken contract that says that will never happen, I feel just a little more limited than I like. [/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