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: 7592047" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Reasonable chance of failure is only one third of the requirements an action must meet to require an ability check. Does flagging down the waitress also have a reasonable chance of failure and a cost or consequence for failing? If it does, then a check is called for. If it doesn’t, it’s just an action that can be resolved without making a check.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Ahh, I see the confusion. “Reasonable chance of failure” does not refer to the chances of the player rolling high enough to beat the DC. Again, DCs are something checks have, and we don’t call for checks unless the <em>action</em> meets the three criteria. “Reasonable chance of success” and “reasonable chance of failure” in this context are not mechanical considerations, they are DM judgment calls based on the fiction. If what the rogue is trying to do logically might work, might not, and has stakes, then a check is the way to resolve it, and if we are resolving it with a check, then the rogue can’t get lower than a 10 so it might not be necessary to actually roll dice to determine whether or not he passes the check. Does that make more sense?</p><p></p><p></p><p>It doesn’t matter, necessarily. That’s how I read manacles, for example - <em>if</em> the player’s approach to breaking out of the manacles is something that logically could work, could fail to work, and has stakes, <em>then</em> the DC for the check you use to resolve it is the one listed in the item’s entry (15 IIRC?). The problem is when you start thinking of breaking the manacles as a DC15 check, instead of as an in-fiction action the character performs, the result of which might or might not depend on the result of a DC15 check.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, so <em>if a check is called for</em>, with all that entails, the Barbarian might not need to roll a die to determine the result of the check. This is distinct from an action that does not even need a check to be resolved, due to not meeting all the criteria for narrative uncertainty.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is really funny to me, considering the fact that the go-to condemnation of my style is that it supposedly de-values stats. Yet, here you are saying you wouldn’t want to attempt something that you didn’t have high enough stats for. I think we might actually be getting somewhere here.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And now you might start to see why, when I do call for a check, I tell the player what the DC and consequence for failure is.</p><p></p><p>Also, important to note here: I’m not just making up consequences out of nowhere. Consequences are a <em>prerequisite</em> for a check to be called for, not something I assign <em>because</em> a check is called for. If you say you want to break down the door with your bare hands, I go through the process in my head. Does this approach (break the door with my bare hands) have a reasonable chance of succeeding at achieving your goal (get the door open)? No. So I don’t call for a check, I say, “try as you might, the iron bars are too solidly built for you to break with just your hands” If you say you want to break off a leg of the bed and use it for leverage, I go through the same process. Does this action have a reasonable chance of success? Sure. Does it have a reasonable chance of failure? Absolutely. Is there a consequence for failure? Eh, it depends. If there are no a guards nearby that might hear the noise, and no time pressure, then no. In that case, the action doesn’t meet all the requirements to be resolved via check, so I’d just let it succeed. “The leg is a bit challenging to rip off, but after a little pulling, you manage it. It makes a loud noise, but no one seems to be coming to investigate. What do you do?” On the other hand, if there is a guard who might hear you, that seems like a consequence. I might say “ok, you could break the leg off the bed with a DC 10 Strength check, but the noise might attract the guard’s attention if you fail. Stealth might be applicable if you have proficiency with it. What do you do?” Now you have enough information to make an informed decision, whether youvwant to accept the risk or try a different approach. You’re not blindly making checks, the results of which you can’t predict. You’re thinking about your character as an entity existing in a world, making decisions as you imagine that entity might. You succeed and fail based on your decisions and the risks you accept or don’t accept.</p><p></p><p>Also, like... deciding you’d rather try to fake being sick than snap off a leg of the bed and use it to pry the door open because you’re not very strong or Athletic, but you are decently but persuasive sounds like a well-reasoned decision based on your character’s capabilities. That’s making a decision based on what you imagine your character would do in a fictional situation, and baby, that’s what I call roleplaying!</p><p></p><p></p><p>I mean... If time is of the essence, then failing absolutely makes things worse, because it wastes time. If that’s the case, I might say something like, “it’ll take some time to pull that leg off the bed. It’ll take a DC 10 Strength check to do it, plus Athletics if you’ve got it. But each attempt is going to take 10 minutes. What do you do?” More importantly, that you don’t want to “try Athletics” is the adjudication style working as intended. You should want to try some kind of in-game action that you think has a good shot at resulting in getting you out of this cell. If you are more likely to lean towards solutions that might rely on your magical prowess than your physical abilities in order to mitigate any potential risk, so much the better. Your character’s stats are informing your decisions in a narrative sense rather than a mechanical one. Again, roleplaying.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That’s fine, that’s your call to make. I inform you of the difficulty and consequences to give you the opportunity to cast Gudance, or Charm Person, or Friends, or spend Inspiration, or enlist help from your fellow party members who might have higher Charisma, or yes, to back out if that’s what you want to do. That makes sense that your character with low Charisma might choose to remain silent in a high-stakes social situation. Also, I think you would find that at my table, more often than not if an action seems like it’d probably work, it just does, especially in low-stakes situations. But any time there is a risk of failure, you know exactly what the risk is, and are always able to back out. In my experience, this very much encourages players to try things, because even in the worst case scenario - the one where you have to make a check - they know what’s at stake, they know their chances of success, and they know they don’t have to go through with it if they don’t feel it’s worth the risk.</p><p></p><p></p><p>My players quite often step in with an idea as well. The difference is, when my players do it, it’s with a clever approach they think might have a good chance of achieving their goal, not the name of a skill they want to roll.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7592047, member: 6779196"] Reasonable chance of failure is only one third of the requirements an action must meet to require an ability check. Does flagging down the waitress also have a reasonable chance of failure and a cost or consequence for failing? If it does, then a check is called for. If it doesn’t, it’s just an action that can be resolved without making a check. Ahh, I see the confusion. “Reasonable chance of failure” does not refer to the chances of the player rolling high enough to beat the DC. Again, DCs are something checks have, and we don’t call for checks unless the [I]action[/I] meets the three criteria. “Reasonable chance of success” and “reasonable chance of failure” in this context are not mechanical considerations, they are DM judgment calls based on the fiction. If what the rogue is trying to do logically might work, might not, and has stakes, then a check is the way to resolve it, and if we are resolving it with a check, then the rogue can’t get lower than a 10 so it might not be necessary to actually roll dice to determine whether or not he passes the check. Does that make more sense? It doesn’t matter, necessarily. That’s how I read manacles, for example - [I]if[/I] the player’s approach to breaking out of the manacles is something that logically could work, could fail to work, and has stakes, [I]then[/I] the DC for the check you use to resolve it is the one listed in the item’s entry (15 IIRC?). The problem is when you start thinking of breaking the manacles as a DC15 check, instead of as an in-fiction action the character performs, the result of which might or might not depend on the result of a DC15 check. Right, so [I]if a check is called for[/I], with all that entails, the Barbarian might not need to roll a die to determine the result of the check. This is distinct from an action that does not even need a check to be resolved, due to not meeting all the criteria for narrative uncertainty. This is really funny to me, considering the fact that the go-to condemnation of my style is that it supposedly de-values stats. Yet, here you are saying you wouldn’t want to attempt something that you didn’t have high enough stats for. I think we might actually be getting somewhere here. And now you might start to see why, when I do call for a check, I tell the player what the DC and consequence for failure is. Also, important to note here: I’m not just making up consequences out of nowhere. Consequences are a [I]prerequisite[/I] for a check to be called for, not something I assign [I]because[/I] a check is called for. If you say you want to break down the door with your bare hands, I go through the process in my head. Does this approach (break the door with my bare hands) have a reasonable chance of succeeding at achieving your goal (get the door open)? No. So I don’t call for a check, I say, “try as you might, the iron bars are too solidly built for you to break with just your hands” If you say you want to break off a leg of the bed and use it for leverage, I go through the same process. Does this action have a reasonable chance of success? Sure. Does it have a reasonable chance of failure? Absolutely. Is there a consequence for failure? Eh, it depends. If there are no a guards nearby that might hear the noise, and no time pressure, then no. In that case, the action doesn’t meet all the requirements to be resolved via check, so I’d just let it succeed. “The leg is a bit challenging to rip off, but after a little pulling, you manage it. It makes a loud noise, but no one seems to be coming to investigate. What do you do?” On the other hand, if there is a guard who might hear you, that seems like a consequence. I might say “ok, you could break the leg off the bed with a DC 10 Strength check, but the noise might attract the guard’s attention if you fail. Stealth might be applicable if you have proficiency with it. What do you do?” Now you have enough information to make an informed decision, whether youvwant to accept the risk or try a different approach. You’re not blindly making checks, the results of which you can’t predict. You’re thinking about your character as an entity existing in a world, making decisions as you imagine that entity might. You succeed and fail based on your decisions and the risks you accept or don’t accept. Also, like... deciding you’d rather try to fake being sick than snap off a leg of the bed and use it to pry the door open because you’re not very strong or Athletic, but you are decently but persuasive sounds like a well-reasoned decision based on your character’s capabilities. That’s making a decision based on what you imagine your character would do in a fictional situation, and baby, that’s what I call roleplaying! I mean... If time is of the essence, then failing absolutely makes things worse, because it wastes time. If that’s the case, I might say something like, “it’ll take some time to pull that leg off the bed. It’ll take a DC 10 Strength check to do it, plus Athletics if you’ve got it. But each attempt is going to take 10 minutes. What do you do?” More importantly, that you don’t want to “try Athletics” is the adjudication style working as intended. You should want to try some kind of in-game action that you think has a good shot at resulting in getting you out of this cell. If you are more likely to lean towards solutions that might rely on your magical prowess than your physical abilities in order to mitigate any potential risk, so much the better. Your character’s stats are informing your decisions in a narrative sense rather than a mechanical one. Again, roleplaying. That’s fine, that’s your call to make. I inform you of the difficulty and consequences to give you the opportunity to cast Gudance, or Charm Person, or Friends, or spend Inspiration, or enlist help from your fellow party members who might have higher Charisma, or yes, to back out if that’s what you want to do. That makes sense that your character with low Charisma might choose to remain silent in a high-stakes social situation. Also, I think you would find that at my table, more often than not if an action seems like it’d probably work, it just does, especially in low-stakes situations. But any time there is a risk of failure, you know exactly what the risk is, and are always able to back out. In my experience, this very much encourages players to try things, because even in the worst case scenario - the one where you have to make a check - they know what’s at stake, they know their chances of success, and they know they don’t have to go through with it if they don’t feel it’s worth the risk. My players quite often step in with an idea as well. The difference is, when my players do it, it’s with a clever approach they think might have a good chance of achieving their goal, not the name of a skill they want to roll. [/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