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: 7592404" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>I don't find myself disagreeing with anything you are proposing necessarily. But I find times when I can both pressure the PCs if they choose not to act and punish them for failing to be uncommon at best. </p><p></p><p>And I don't really need to look for them most of the time. Eventually my players seek out things, they look for those narrative points. </p><p></p><p>Also, I don't like rolling only during narratively important events, because I think that removes rolling too much from the game. </p><p></p><p>I think what most got me in the post you quoted was Charlaquin's claim that punishing players makes them look for better options instead of relying on their best skills. To my perspective, it would do the opposite. I would fight like crazy to avoid situations where I had to use a skill I was bad at, to the point where I'd cede the narrative to another player. And, if your play involves leaving players no choice but to hope for the best, because both acting and not acting have dire consequences... that can be fun occasionally, but wouldn't it be better for the players to seek out these moments instead of being driven to them? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So the reasonable chance of failure has nothing to do with the success or failure of the check? </p><p></p><p>I'm glad we are clearing up confusion, but you realize then that we now have a chance of failure in an action which cannot fail. Which could get very confusing if I tried to explain it to a player for example. </p><p></p><p>But that makes me re-look at the barmaid example. Chance of success? Yep. Chance of failure? Yep. Stakes? Possible depending on the circumstances. So, would you call for a DC 5 check, if there were high enough stakes? You aren't considering the mechanical effects what so ever, it is purely within the fiction, the mechanical comes afterwards. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What problem? The closest you've come to telling me there is a problem is that I'll suddenly stop allowing people to succeed without a roll... which isn't true. So what problem do you see in thinking that breaking manacles with pure muscle strength (maybe the aid of a crowbar) is a DC 20? They have an AC and HP too, is it a problem to start thinking of breaking manacles as being a combat roll with damage as well? DC to pick the lock is 15 I do believe, so now I also have the problem of thinking of them as a DC 15 picking check. </p><p></p><p>All three are true, all three I can consider, and yet keeping those in mind is a problem? How? Why? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, baby, I was making a decision based off of the mechanics of the roll and what was my highest modifier. The thing you said your style would de-emphasize. </p><p></p><p>If I was thinking about how my character would act in a fictional setting... I'd consider their personality. Are they are hot head who is going to rage about and try and break out, or are they cool headed and going for a plan that involves deception. I didn't consider any of that, I didn't think about my role, I looked at hard numbers for the most likely path to success. My character didn't matter at all, only my statistics. </p><p></p><p>And I'm curious, about the bolded part. What do you do with information the player cannot have? I don't see guards, and I seem to be alone, but they've actually got a guard post with a scrying eye set up. Do you tell me that I'm secretly under observation so I can make my decision? </p><p></p><p>And how long would I have to have to be under "no pressure" timewise? An action is a few seconds, if I have ten minutes during the guard switching or dragging a prisoner off is that enough time to auto-succeed? Would you tell me that, so I could make the most complete decision? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No role is necessary to look at my stats. And, I know that any roll to break something via strength of arm is 90% likely to be an athletics check. Just like I know "I huddle into the corner to blend with the shadows so the guards can't see me" is a stealth check. I'm trying stealth. Whether or not I dress it up is immaterial to me knowing what mechanical call is likely to be made from my actions. </p><p></p><p>My mechanical stats are informing decisions of the narrative, exactly what you said would not be the case. "Players are more likely to look for the action most likely to succeed instead of simply rolling a check." Well, I'm looking at the most likely mechanical check to succeed and you are praising me for my roleplaying, with no regards to any role. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So you are perfectly fine with players backing out of moments of fictional importance because their mechanics don't match up with the challenge. </p><p></p><p>Roll playing is the term you are looking for to describe that. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah, I see the problem. You assume that because I'm fine with players saying "I roll insight" that all they need to do is say "persuasion 23" and that's it. They never come up with clever approaches. </p><p></p><p>Well, once more, assumptions are dangerous things. Yes, I would allow "I want to roll persuasion to convince the guards to let us go, we're heroes of the city after all". But, that doesn't mean I would allows "Persuasion 23" and just go with it. And my players also come up with clever approaches. I'd like to think I encourage that because they know that having a bad idea isn't going to hurt the party necessarily. Not that I don't also point out to them when they are making a poor decision "So you want to temporarily mind control the guard into letting you go... are you sure about that?" </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Umm, you might want to reread your post </p><p></p><p>"Neither of us said there has to be a consequence for there to be a check. If there is no consequence the action is just successful (ie, no check)"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7592404, member: 6801228"] I don't find myself disagreeing with anything you are proposing necessarily. But I find times when I can both pressure the PCs if they choose not to act and punish them for failing to be uncommon at best. And I don't really need to look for them most of the time. Eventually my players seek out things, they look for those narrative points. Also, I don't like rolling only during narratively important events, because I think that removes rolling too much from the game. I think what most got me in the post you quoted was Charlaquin's claim that punishing players makes them look for better options instead of relying on their best skills. To my perspective, it would do the opposite. I would fight like crazy to avoid situations where I had to use a skill I was bad at, to the point where I'd cede the narrative to another player. And, if your play involves leaving players no choice but to hope for the best, because both acting and not acting have dire consequences... that can be fun occasionally, but wouldn't it be better for the players to seek out these moments instead of being driven to them? So the reasonable chance of failure has nothing to do with the success or failure of the check? I'm glad we are clearing up confusion, but you realize then that we now have a chance of failure in an action which cannot fail. Which could get very confusing if I tried to explain it to a player for example. But that makes me re-look at the barmaid example. Chance of success? Yep. Chance of failure? Yep. Stakes? Possible depending on the circumstances. So, would you call for a DC 5 check, if there were high enough stakes? You aren't considering the mechanical effects what so ever, it is purely within the fiction, the mechanical comes afterwards. What problem? The closest you've come to telling me there is a problem is that I'll suddenly stop allowing people to succeed without a roll... which isn't true. So what problem do you see in thinking that breaking manacles with pure muscle strength (maybe the aid of a crowbar) is a DC 20? They have an AC and HP too, is it a problem to start thinking of breaking manacles as being a combat roll with damage as well? DC to pick the lock is 15 I do believe, so now I also have the problem of thinking of them as a DC 15 picking check. All three are true, all three I can consider, and yet keeping those in mind is a problem? How? Why? Actually, baby, I was making a decision based off of the mechanics of the roll and what was my highest modifier. The thing you said your style would de-emphasize. If I was thinking about how my character would act in a fictional setting... I'd consider their personality. Are they are hot head who is going to rage about and try and break out, or are they cool headed and going for a plan that involves deception. I didn't consider any of that, I didn't think about my role, I looked at hard numbers for the most likely path to success. My character didn't matter at all, only my statistics. And I'm curious, about the bolded part. What do you do with information the player cannot have? I don't see guards, and I seem to be alone, but they've actually got a guard post with a scrying eye set up. Do you tell me that I'm secretly under observation so I can make my decision? And how long would I have to have to be under "no pressure" timewise? An action is a few seconds, if I have ten minutes during the guard switching or dragging a prisoner off is that enough time to auto-succeed? Would you tell me that, so I could make the most complete decision? No role is necessary to look at my stats. And, I know that any roll to break something via strength of arm is 90% likely to be an athletics check. Just like I know "I huddle into the corner to blend with the shadows so the guards can't see me" is a stealth check. I'm trying stealth. Whether or not I dress it up is immaterial to me knowing what mechanical call is likely to be made from my actions. My mechanical stats are informing decisions of the narrative, exactly what you said would not be the case. "Players are more likely to look for the action most likely to succeed instead of simply rolling a check." Well, I'm looking at the most likely mechanical check to succeed and you are praising me for my roleplaying, with no regards to any role. So you are perfectly fine with players backing out of moments of fictional importance because their mechanics don't match up with the challenge. Roll playing is the term you are looking for to describe that. Ah, I see the problem. You assume that because I'm fine with players saying "I roll insight" that all they need to do is say "persuasion 23" and that's it. They never come up with clever approaches. Well, once more, assumptions are dangerous things. Yes, I would allow "I want to roll persuasion to convince the guards to let us go, we're heroes of the city after all". But, that doesn't mean I would allows "Persuasion 23" and just go with it. And my players also come up with clever approaches. I'd like to think I encourage that because they know that having a bad idea isn't going to hurt the party necessarily. Not that I don't also point out to them when they are making a poor decision "So you want to temporarily mind control the guard into letting you go... are you sure about that?" Umm, you might want to reread your post "Neither of us said there has to be a consequence for there to be a check. If there is no consequence the action is just successful (ie, no check)" [/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