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: 7591879" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>To add to this, let us say there is a massive bloodstain in front of a trapped door. A door that is still trapped. </p><p></p><p>That means no one has gotten through this door, because it is still trapped and the person who tried is dead. </p><p></p><p>So then, why would there be a bloodstain in front of the next trapped door in that dungeon? No one got through the first, the only indication you had was the previous adventurers failure, no hints from the trap itself, so how would you narrate the next door that was trapped in the same dungeon? </p><p></p><p></p><p>Side Side tangent: I really want to have a big dungeon with traps and stuff clearly cleared by adventurers, holes in the walls next to next to doors for stone shape, ect. Then they come to a completely clean passage. The subsequent "oh craps" should be very entertaining. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Around 400 posts ago there was a highly sarcastic example of "rolling overceding player decisions" where a player did everything to a door handle possible, including wiping it down, to try and detect a poison on the door handle. Failed the roll, and things went from there.</p><p></p><p>A better phrasing might have been, I wouldn't have let the players actions fail. OR I wouldn't have called for a roll. Or any number of things. </p><p></p><p>But, after defending myself so many times against something I never disagreed with because people think I disagreed with it, I'm getting sloppier in my responses. Mostly cause I'm getting tired of defending myself against something I never once said. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, first I'm really curious why every time after the first that you quote me, it shows up as you quoting [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION]. It doesn't matter, but it is starting to get weird. </p><p></p><p>But, on to pedantry. </p><p></p><p>That's the point. </p><p></p><p>In the strictest since, a roll is being made, but the result is changing so that it doesn't matter what is rolled. So, if we decide not to roll the dice because the result is a known factor... is that an ability check? </p><p></p><p>What if you want to flag down the waitress? It could be seen as a DC 5 charisma check. But, considering how minor in importance that moment is, and the high likelihood of success, we choose not to roll the dice. There is little to no uncertainty and no stakes. But does that mean there is not an ability check that could be rolled?</p><p></p><p>So, if the Rogue's Reliable Talent is an ability check, which is must be since that ability only works on an ability check, even if we do not roll the dice... then why must flagging down the waitress not be an ability check? Why is there a division between these two events, where they are both situations where no roll is made for speed of play, even though a roll could or should be made "technically:" </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I believe it was you who had an issue with the fact that sometimes I call for rolls when, given the amount of time players have and the lack of threat, the end result of the roll is not going to change the goal. Eventually, the players were going to get through the vault door. They had over a week until the next major threat that could possibly interrupt them from doing so, and it was only the work of hours to break through it, and the monsters in this area are automatons and are stuck in loops, not reacting to sounds. </p><p></p><p>So, some people on this thread would have said that I should not call for the roll. There was no significant consequence for failure, the only thing being the inconsequential loss of time. And yet, I did it, and I did it because I knew that it made sense and that my player would enjoy succeeding on the roll. And that failure on the roll, indicating he could not break down the door quickly, would have been important to them, even if it changed nothing narrative. </p><p></p><p>That idea seemed to bother people, and so a line of discussion spun off from it. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I did. </p><p></p><p>And the point in that post I made was never about how to handle that roll, it was about how to narrate failure on a die roll. That is something that happens. A highly skilled character <u>can</u> fail trying something that statistically and mathematically they were unlikely to fail. </p><p></p><p>And so, I responded that instead of just going with "You fail. Take Damage" I would want to cushion it in the narrative. There was a <strong>reason </strong> they failed in the story. It was because of the dice, but the dice only told us they failed. They don't tell us why. So, if I am confronted by failure, I don't just brush it off, I give them the reason in the narrative. </p><p></p><p>Players fail rolls. It happens in the game. Whether that particular roll should have been called for has nothing to do with the fact that as a DM I have to consider how I would narrate a failure, even one that on the surface seemed so unlikely that we didn't think it was going to happen.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly. You have no problem with what I said, you have no disagreement with me. Your entire disagreement is that I didn't condemn an absurd premise hard enough. </p><p></p><p>Fine. </p><p></p><p> [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], in your sarcastic example of a DM calling for a die roll to disarm a poisoned handle, even after the player declared they were wiping the handle with a thick cloth and were wearing gloves so that no poison could possibly contact their skin, you were completely wrong in all ways and there was nothing redeemable about that. No roll should ever be called upon in that situation, no matter the circumstances, and nothing else could ever be said about that example or any permutation of that example because your failure in calling for that roll was so extreme it eclipses everything else. </p><p></p><p>Further more, my use of that example to bring up an entirely different point was wrong in all ways. I should have never have done so, and will endeavor to punish myself appropriately for such a disgrace, since my point fell under the assumption of the roll that must have never been and that is a shameful scar upon my DMing from here on out. </p><p></p><p>Now, [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION], if I have properly responded to the roll that never should have been made, can we just drop this already? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, I find myself somewhat confused here Ovinomancer. </p><p></p><p>Why do you think finding out if the shopkeeper lied or not is the end of the conflict? </p><p></p><p>As I understand things (and I abandoned the shopkeep lying discussion a while ago) it was a discussion a single moment. IF they are lying then that puts forth on set of events. If not, the players are going in a different direction. </p><p></p><p>It is a single obstacle... why does it have to be interesting? The event of a goblin scout noticing the party is not, in and of itself, interesting. It is a relatively boring thing. The interest comes in the reactions after that. So why is it that we must investigate the shopkeep and turn his love for his daughter against him for him to tell us he lied.... if we don't know he lied. </p><p></p><p>If we suspect he lied, then went back to get the truth, I see it. But, why do we suspect he lied? Are you just going to tell your players that the shopkeep is lying to them about what is going on? If we don't come out and say it, and or you strongly hint through clues and roadsigns that are impossible to miss, then why would the players investigate him for leverage to get the truth. They have the "truth" and don't suspect anything else. </p><p></p><p>This is where the roll comes in. Can they tell if he is lying? If they can, then they can work to get the truth, if they can't they will assume he is not lying and that changes the nature of their investigation until they get the truth.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7591879, member: 6801228"] To add to this, let us say there is a massive bloodstain in front of a trapped door. A door that is still trapped. That means no one has gotten through this door, because it is still trapped and the person who tried is dead. So then, why would there be a bloodstain in front of the next trapped door in that dungeon? No one got through the first, the only indication you had was the previous adventurers failure, no hints from the trap itself, so how would you narrate the next door that was trapped in the same dungeon? Side Side tangent: I really want to have a big dungeon with traps and stuff clearly cleared by adventurers, holes in the walls next to next to doors for stone shape, ect. Then they come to a completely clean passage. The subsequent "oh craps" should be very entertaining. Around 400 posts ago there was a highly sarcastic example of "rolling overceding player decisions" where a player did everything to a door handle possible, including wiping it down, to try and detect a poison on the door handle. Failed the roll, and things went from there. A better phrasing might have been, I wouldn't have let the players actions fail. OR I wouldn't have called for a roll. Or any number of things. But, after defending myself so many times against something I never disagreed with because people think I disagreed with it, I'm getting sloppier in my responses. Mostly cause I'm getting tired of defending myself against something I never once said. Okay, first I'm really curious why every time after the first that you quote me, it shows up as you quoting [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION]. It doesn't matter, but it is starting to get weird. But, on to pedantry. That's the point. In the strictest since, a roll is being made, but the result is changing so that it doesn't matter what is rolled. So, if we decide not to roll the dice because the result is a known factor... is that an ability check? What if you want to flag down the waitress? It could be seen as a DC 5 charisma check. But, considering how minor in importance that moment is, and the high likelihood of success, we choose not to roll the dice. There is little to no uncertainty and no stakes. But does that mean there is not an ability check that could be rolled? So, if the Rogue's Reliable Talent is an ability check, which is must be since that ability only works on an ability check, even if we do not roll the dice... then why must flagging down the waitress not be an ability check? Why is there a division between these two events, where they are both situations where no roll is made for speed of play, even though a roll could or should be made "technically:" I believe it was you who had an issue with the fact that sometimes I call for rolls when, given the amount of time players have and the lack of threat, the end result of the roll is not going to change the goal. Eventually, the players were going to get through the vault door. They had over a week until the next major threat that could possibly interrupt them from doing so, and it was only the work of hours to break through it, and the monsters in this area are automatons and are stuck in loops, not reacting to sounds. So, some people on this thread would have said that I should not call for the roll. There was no significant consequence for failure, the only thing being the inconsequential loss of time. And yet, I did it, and I did it because I knew that it made sense and that my player would enjoy succeeding on the roll. And that failure on the roll, indicating he could not break down the door quickly, would have been important to them, even if it changed nothing narrative. That idea seemed to bother people, and so a line of discussion spun off from it. I did. And the point in that post I made was never about how to handle that roll, it was about how to narrate failure on a die roll. That is something that happens. A highly skilled character [U]can[/U] fail trying something that statistically and mathematically they were unlikely to fail. And so, I responded that instead of just going with "You fail. Take Damage" I would want to cushion it in the narrative. There was a [B]reason [/B] they failed in the story. It was because of the dice, but the dice only told us they failed. They don't tell us why. So, if I am confronted by failure, I don't just brush it off, I give them the reason in the narrative. Players fail rolls. It happens in the game. Whether that particular roll should have been called for has nothing to do with the fact that as a DM I have to consider how I would narrate a failure, even one that on the surface seemed so unlikely that we didn't think it was going to happen. Exactly. You have no problem with what I said, you have no disagreement with me. Your entire disagreement is that I didn't condemn an absurd premise hard enough. Fine. [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], in your sarcastic example of a DM calling for a die roll to disarm a poisoned handle, even after the player declared they were wiping the handle with a thick cloth and were wearing gloves so that no poison could possibly contact their skin, you were completely wrong in all ways and there was nothing redeemable about that. No roll should ever be called upon in that situation, no matter the circumstances, and nothing else could ever be said about that example or any permutation of that example because your failure in calling for that roll was so extreme it eclipses everything else. Further more, my use of that example to bring up an entirely different point was wrong in all ways. I should have never have done so, and will endeavor to punish myself appropriately for such a disgrace, since my point fell under the assumption of the roll that must have never been and that is a shameful scar upon my DMing from here on out. Now, [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION], if I have properly responded to the roll that never should have been made, can we just drop this already? Okay, I find myself somewhat confused here Ovinomancer. Why do you think finding out if the shopkeeper lied or not is the end of the conflict? As I understand things (and I abandoned the shopkeep lying discussion a while ago) it was a discussion a single moment. IF they are lying then that puts forth on set of events. If not, the players are going in a different direction. It is a single obstacle... why does it have to be interesting? The event of a goblin scout noticing the party is not, in and of itself, interesting. It is a relatively boring thing. The interest comes in the reactions after that. So why is it that we must investigate the shopkeep and turn his love for his daughter against him for him to tell us he lied.... if we don't know he lied. If we suspect he lied, then went back to get the truth, I see it. But, why do we suspect he lied? Are you just going to tell your players that the shopkeep is lying to them about what is going on? If we don't come out and say it, and or you strongly hint through clues and roadsigns that are impossible to miss, then why would the players investigate him for leverage to get the truth. They have the "truth" and don't suspect anything else. This is where the roll comes in. Can they tell if he is lying? If they can, then they can work to get the truth, if they can't they will assume he is not lying and that changes the nature of their investigation until they get the truth. [/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