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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7592067" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Here we can see the outlines of different approaches to RPGing.</p><p></p><p>I want to draw out one contrast: between (1) consequences for failure as a <em>prior, necessary condition</em> to call for a check (Charlaquin's approach) and (2) consequences for failure as a <em>subsequent condition</em> mandated by a prior decision to call for a check (my preferred approach, perhaps sometimes [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]'s approach).</p><p></p><p>In approach (1), <em>part of deciding whether or not to call for a check</em> is inspecting the "causal" state of the fiction to determine whether or not it contains implicit consequences (eg guards who might be attracted by noise in a cell). This is one aspect of what I was trying to get at upthread in talking about an approach that focuses on "engineering" aspects of the fiction, like who is where when, and what causal processes are they participating in.</p><p></p><p>This is not an aspect of approach (2). Approach (2) determines whether or not to call for a check on a different basis (I'll say what in a moment). <em>If a check is called for</em>, and fails, then consequences <em>will be narrated</em>, which may require establishing new fictional elements (like guards, or a cursed sarcophagus) to be constituent elements of those consequences. To put it another way, if a consequence is needed then the GM establishes the requisite in-fiction "causal" conditions that will be part of that.</p><p></p><p>On approach (2), what triggers the decision to call for a check? That the moment of decision and action declaration is a <em>dramatic</em> or <em>emotionally resonant</em> moment in the unfolding fiction, as it is being played by the participants at the table. The <em>uncertainty</em> that underlies the call for a check is not "engineering" or "casual" uncertainty but dramatic, thematic, emotional uncertainty, the uncertainty of "This is a big deal, I hope it works out!"</p><p></p><p>On approach (2) players can't, in general, avoid rolling the d20 through careful/clever play. That's an idea that pertains to approach (1). Under approach (2) it may be that, if everyone at the table gets excited or moved or shocked by a player's declared action at a key moment then perhaps the GM doesn't call for a check - but again that's for reasons to do with <em>emotion</em> and <em>drama</em>, not "engineering" or skilled play.</p><p></p><p>During the playtest for 5e there were some posters on these boards who thought that the emerging rules for ability checks created scope for approach (2) as well as approach (1). I think that, in principle at least, this should be feasible with the final ruleset. Using approach (2) making it clear what the character is doing in the fiction, when a player declares an action, is as important as in approach (1) because that helps establish the fictional context for the extrapolation of consequences, including helping establish what exactly the player has put at stake by way of his/her PC's action. But the underlying logic of calling for checks is quite different as between the two approaches.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7592067, member: 42582"] Here we can see the outlines of different approaches to RPGing. I want to draw out one contrast: between (1) consequences for failure as a [I]prior, necessary condition[/I] to call for a check (Charlaquin's approach) and (2) consequences for failure as a [I]subsequent condition[/I] mandated by a prior decision to call for a check (my preferred approach, perhaps sometimes [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]'s approach). In approach (1), [I]part of deciding whether or not to call for a check[/I] is inspecting the "causal" state of the fiction to determine whether or not it contains implicit consequences (eg guards who might be attracted by noise in a cell). This is one aspect of what I was trying to get at upthread in talking about an approach that focuses on "engineering" aspects of the fiction, like who is where when, and what causal processes are they participating in. This is not an aspect of approach (2). Approach (2) determines whether or not to call for a check on a different basis (I'll say what in a moment). [I]If a check is called for[/I], and fails, then consequences [I]will be narrated[/I], which may require establishing new fictional elements (like guards, or a cursed sarcophagus) to be constituent elements of those consequences. To put it another way, if a consequence is needed then the GM establishes the requisite in-fiction "causal" conditions that will be part of that. On approach (2), what triggers the decision to call for a check? That the moment of decision and action declaration is a [I]dramatic[/I] or [I]emotionally resonant[/I] moment in the unfolding fiction, as it is being played by the participants at the table. The [I]uncertainty[/I] that underlies the call for a check is not "engineering" or "casual" uncertainty but dramatic, thematic, emotional uncertainty, the uncertainty of "This is a big deal, I hope it works out!" On approach (2) players can't, in general, avoid rolling the d20 through careful/clever play. That's an idea that pertains to approach (1). Under approach (2) it may be that, if everyone at the table gets excited or moved or shocked by a player's declared action at a key moment then perhaps the GM doesn't call for a check - but again that's for reasons to do with [I]emotion[/I] and [I]drama[/I], not "engineering" or skilled play. During the playtest for 5e there were some posters on these boards who thought that the emerging rules for ability checks created scope for approach (2) as well as approach (1). I think that, in principle at least, this should be feasible with the final ruleset. Using approach (2) making it clear what the character is doing in the fiction, when a player declares an action, is as important as in approach (1) because that helps establish the fictional context for the extrapolation of consequences, including helping establish what exactly the player has put at stake by way of his/her PC's action. But the underlying logic of calling for checks is quite different as between the two approaches. [/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