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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7591948" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Okay, so, to be clear, your confusion is because I said that the shopkeeper lying is the conflict?</p><p></p><p>I say this because it's treated with importance in the examples. A successful check to see if the shopkeep is lying leaves the uncertainty intact -- some hint is provided, but it's been clearly stated that an answer isn't going to be provided. The only way I see this being useful is if the shopkeeper lying is a key part of the mystery (which has also been said) such that a quick answer will disrupt the GM's plans. If it's not that important, I really don't understand why the uncertainty isn't being resolved on a success, much less what might happen on a failure.</p><p></p><p>In other words, it appears to be the crux of the situation because of the level of protection provided to the truth of the shopkeeper lying. I don't understand why you would do this if it wasn't the important part.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, if I put an obstacle into the game, it will be of interest. I mean, if it's uninteresting, why not just narrate past it and get to the interesting bits?</p><p></p><p>As I've said above, I think that the inclusion of obstacles that aren't interesting is a big driver in the playstyle of letting players ask for rolls to get past these obstacles quickly. </p><p></p><p></p><p>If it's not an interesting obstacle, then, yes, I will just tell them this in narration. If it's an interesting obstacle, then the lying shopkeep will be an avenue to what they actually want to accomplish. In that scenario, in my game the theft as a whole would be part of a larger goal for the party. Perhaps they're trying to gain influence, or they're paying off a debt. I couldn't say without the actual game. But, the shopkeeper lying would be a facet for which the resolution of the lying question would be something to move that goal forward (on a success) or backward (on a failure), but it would be interesting and the uncertainty would be conclusively resolved, one way or the other.</p><p></p><p>There's still this framing of the situation as if it's occurring in your games, with your style and your design. I can't seem to say it enough that using the goal and approach, or, more specifically, always consequence on failure, means that how the game is set-up changes a great deal. Now, if you ask for a roll, you have to be prepared to have a bad thing happen on a failure and also be prepared to conclusively resolve the uncertainty in the character's favor on a success. There's no more punting the uncertainty down the line by soft-peddling a success to keep the uncertainty but provide a vague feeling one way or the other. You have to close the deal on a success. Or, if it's a big goal, move decisively closer to resolution on a success. Thinking of the challenges this way is very different from the methods of running that are very common in older editions. You have to acknowledge the play. This is a weird thing to say, but really think about your last session -- how many times did you answer a roll vaguely versus how many times did you let a roll change the fiction (one way or the other) decisively? My game is the latter, where rolls change the fiction decisively, and that means that I have to set up challenges in a very different way than what you seem used to. Frex, there's no obstacles that aren't interesting because any failure on a roll means that things get worse, and that's something that's definitely interesting.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Personally, I see no point in a roll to let the players know that it's okay for their characters to think a thing about an NPC. If the players think the NPC is lying, they can declare actions based on that thought, and I'll adjudicate them. This may involve an Insight check, depending on the approach provided. But a roll to see if someone is lying? Meh, nope, boring. And, please note, this is my interpretation, others of the middle path do it differently.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7591948, member: 16814"] Okay, so, to be clear, your confusion is because I said that the shopkeeper lying is the conflict? I say this because it's treated with importance in the examples. A successful check to see if the shopkeep is lying leaves the uncertainty intact -- some hint is provided, but it's been clearly stated that an answer isn't going to be provided. The only way I see this being useful is if the shopkeeper lying is a key part of the mystery (which has also been said) such that a quick answer will disrupt the GM's plans. If it's not that important, I really don't understand why the uncertainty isn't being resolved on a success, much less what might happen on a failure. In other words, it appears to be the crux of the situation because of the level of protection provided to the truth of the shopkeeper lying. I don't understand why you would do this if it wasn't the important part. Again, if I put an obstacle into the game, it will be of interest. I mean, if it's uninteresting, why not just narrate past it and get to the interesting bits? As I've said above, I think that the inclusion of obstacles that aren't interesting is a big driver in the playstyle of letting players ask for rolls to get past these obstacles quickly. If it's not an interesting obstacle, then, yes, I will just tell them this in narration. If it's an interesting obstacle, then the lying shopkeep will be an avenue to what they actually want to accomplish. In that scenario, in my game the theft as a whole would be part of a larger goal for the party. Perhaps they're trying to gain influence, or they're paying off a debt. I couldn't say without the actual game. But, the shopkeeper lying would be a facet for which the resolution of the lying question would be something to move that goal forward (on a success) or backward (on a failure), but it would be interesting and the uncertainty would be conclusively resolved, one way or the other. There's still this framing of the situation as if it's occurring in your games, with your style and your design. I can't seem to say it enough that using the goal and approach, or, more specifically, always consequence on failure, means that how the game is set-up changes a great deal. Now, if you ask for a roll, you have to be prepared to have a bad thing happen on a failure and also be prepared to conclusively resolve the uncertainty in the character's favor on a success. There's no more punting the uncertainty down the line by soft-peddling a success to keep the uncertainty but provide a vague feeling one way or the other. You have to close the deal on a success. Or, if it's a big goal, move decisively closer to resolution on a success. Thinking of the challenges this way is very different from the methods of running that are very common in older editions. You have to acknowledge the play. This is a weird thing to say, but really think about your last session -- how many times did you answer a roll vaguely versus how many times did you let a roll change the fiction (one way or the other) decisively? My game is the latter, where rolls change the fiction decisively, and that means that I have to set up challenges in a very different way than what you seem used to. Frex, there's no obstacles that aren't interesting because any failure on a roll means that things get worse, and that's something that's definitely interesting. Personally, I see no point in a roll to let the players know that it's okay for their characters to think a thing about an NPC. If the players think the NPC is lying, they can declare actions based on that thought, and I'll adjudicate them. This may involve an Insight check, depending on the approach provided. But a roll to see if someone is lying? Meh, nope, boring. And, please note, this is my interpretation, others of the middle path do it differently. [/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