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: 7592486" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>This is very,very far afield of my claim. My claim was/is that not calling for a roll unless the action has a logical chance of success, chance of failure, and cost for the attempt or consequence for failure, encourages players to look for ways of resolving actions that don't have a chance of failure or don't have a cost for the attempt or consequence for failure.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The thing is, a more successful strategy to avoid situations where you have to use a skill you're bad at is to avoid situations where you have to use a skill. Try to eliminate the chance of failure by coming up with effective approaches, rather than relying on your stats to mitigate the chance of failure.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Where are you getting this idea from?</p><p></p><p></p><p>No. The <em>existence of the check</em> has everything to do with the logical outcome of the action.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, we have an <em>action</em> that can fail, being resolved by a <em>check</em> that cannot. That's why it's important to distinguish between the action the character performs and the check the player must make to resolve it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Eh, to be honest, I don't think flagging down the waitress has a reasonable chance of failure. Like, could it technically fail? Sure, but so could tying your shoes, and we don't make checks for that. That's why I say "reasonable chance of failure" instead of "possibility of failure." Whether or not a check is called for depends not only on if the action <em>could</em> fail, but if failure is a plausible and dramatically significant possibility. In other words, if it has a chance of failure and a consequence for failure.</p><p></p><p>That said, I'm happy to examine the hypothetical situation where failing to flag down the waitress is both reasonably likely and has a meaningful consequence. Maybe the restaurant is really busy so it might be too noisy for her to hear you, and she might be too distracted to notice you, but there is a chance she might see or hear you. And maybe you're running late for an important meeting, so if you do fail to get her attention quickly enough, you might not make it in time to your meeting and you'll get in trouble. Ok, now we have met all the criteria for this action to be resolved by way of a check. Seems like Charisma, and seems easy to moderate to pull off. So sure, I'll ask for a DC 5 Charisma check. Maybe Performance would be applicable. I'd say that, and if your Charisma + Performance was +4 or higher, or if you had some feature like Reliable Talent that would prevent you from rolling lower than a 5, you could tell me so, and I'd say you succeed.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, <em>keeping those things in mind</em> is not a problem. Conflating the mechanical process of the DC 20 Strength check, the DC 15 Dexterity check, or the attacks made to destroy the manacles with the action of trying to break out of them, trying to slip out of them, or trying to smash them with something is. It leads to confusion, as you pointed out earlier, when you mistake an action that could fail being resolved by a check that could not with an action that could not fail.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Alright, then I guess that's how you made your decision. I'm not the thought police. The important thing, to me, is that you thought about the situation, thought about what your character would do in that situation, and told me what your character was doing, rather than just telling me the name of a stat you wanted to roll with.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I tell you the DC and possible consequences of your action. "That'll require you to succeed on a DC 10 Strength check, plus Athletics if you've got it. On a failure, you might attract the attention of the guards." That doesn't really tell you anything you couldn't otherwise know. I'm not telling you there's a secret scrying sensor, I'm not telling you you're not alone, I'm telling you that making noise could attract guards.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>I would say if you only have 10 minutes, that is enough time pressure to require a check. I tend to work in 10-minute intervals for simplicity's sake, so in that situation I'd probably rule that you could get it done in less than 10 minutes on a success, but not on a failure. Something like: "You could do that quickly with a DC 10 Strength check. On a failure, it'll take 10 minutes."</p><p></p><p></p><p>But, see, you're still thinking in terms of action = check. Breaking something is not 90% likely to require a check. <em>If it does</em>, yes, it is 90% likely to be Strength based, but I'll also tell you if it requires a check and give you the opportunity to take action to mitigate the risk or to back out if you so choose. "I try to break it with my hands" might result in "Ok, it breaks" or might result in "that'll take a DC (whatever) Strength check, and on a failure (whatever). What do you do?" There's never a situation where you're forced to make a Strength check because the action you described is physical in nature. I'll always tell you the risk, and you are always free to say "On second thought, nah, I'm gonna try something else."</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, you are still making your decisions based on an assumption that action = check. Instead of looking for what stat you're most likely to succeed on a roll with, you would have more success thinking about what your character could do that seems like it would probably work without a roll. And in actual play, with players who are genuinely interested in engaging with the game instead of trying to prove that my DMing style is bad, that's what I find most of my players doing, including ones who are initially reticent about having to describe actions in terms of in-character approach.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Let's not resort to name-calling. Roll-playing is a meaningless term used only to insult playstyles one doesn't like.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Aight, man. If that works for you, have fun. Not my style, personally.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Umm...</p><p></p><p>???</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, you might want to re-read my post</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7592486, member: 6779196"] This is very,very far afield of my claim. My claim was/is that not calling for a roll unless the action has a logical chance of success, chance of failure, and cost for the attempt or consequence for failure, encourages players to look for ways of resolving actions that don't have a chance of failure or don't have a cost for the attempt or consequence for failure. The thing is, a more successful strategy to avoid situations where you have to use a skill you're bad at is to avoid situations where you have to use a skill. Try to eliminate the chance of failure by coming up with effective approaches, rather than relying on your stats to mitigate the chance of failure. Where are you getting this idea from? No. The [I]existence of the check[/I] has everything to do with the logical outcome of the action. No, we have an [I]action[/I] that can fail, being resolved by a [I]check[/I] that cannot. That's why it's important to distinguish between the action the character performs and the check the player must make to resolve it. Eh, to be honest, I don't think flagging down the waitress has a reasonable chance of failure. Like, could it technically fail? Sure, but so could tying your shoes, and we don't make checks for that. That's why I say "reasonable chance of failure" instead of "possibility of failure." Whether or not a check is called for depends not only on if the action [I]could[/I] fail, but if failure is a plausible and dramatically significant possibility. In other words, if it has a chance of failure and a consequence for failure. That said, I'm happy to examine the hypothetical situation where failing to flag down the waitress is both reasonably likely and has a meaningful consequence. Maybe the restaurant is really busy so it might be too noisy for her to hear you, and she might be too distracted to notice you, but there is a chance she might see or hear you. And maybe you're running late for an important meeting, so if you do fail to get her attention quickly enough, you might not make it in time to your meeting and you'll get in trouble. Ok, now we have met all the criteria for this action to be resolved by way of a check. Seems like Charisma, and seems easy to moderate to pull off. So sure, I'll ask for a DC 5 Charisma check. Maybe Performance would be applicable. I'd say that, and if your Charisma + Performance was +4 or higher, or if you had some feature like Reliable Talent that would prevent you from rolling lower than a 5, you could tell me so, and I'd say you succeed. Again, [I]keeping those things in mind[/I] is not a problem. Conflating the mechanical process of the DC 20 Strength check, the DC 15 Dexterity check, or the attacks made to destroy the manacles with the action of trying to break out of them, trying to slip out of them, or trying to smash them with something is. It leads to confusion, as you pointed out earlier, when you mistake an action that could fail being resolved by a check that could not with an action that could not fail. Alright, then I guess that's how you made your decision. I'm not the thought police. The important thing, to me, is that you thought about the situation, thought about what your character would do in that situation, and told me what your character was doing, rather than just telling me the name of a stat you wanted to roll with. I tell you the DC and possible consequences of your action. "That'll require you to succeed on a DC 10 Strength check, plus Athletics if you've got it. On a failure, you might attract the attention of the guards." That doesn't really tell you anything you couldn't otherwise know. I'm not telling you there's a secret scrying sensor, I'm not telling you you're not alone, I'm telling you that making noise could attract guards. I would say if you only have 10 minutes, that is enough time pressure to require a check. I tend to work in 10-minute intervals for simplicity's sake, so in that situation I'd probably rule that you could get it done in less than 10 minutes on a success, but not on a failure. Something like: "You could do that quickly with a DC 10 Strength check. On a failure, it'll take 10 minutes." But, see, you're still thinking in terms of action = check. Breaking something is not 90% likely to require a check. [I]If it does[/I], yes, it is 90% likely to be Strength based, but I'll also tell you if it requires a check and give you the opportunity to take action to mitigate the risk or to back out if you so choose. "I try to break it with my hands" might result in "Ok, it breaks" or might result in "that'll take a DC (whatever) Strength check, and on a failure (whatever). What do you do?" There's never a situation where you're forced to make a Strength check because the action you described is physical in nature. I'll always tell you the risk, and you are always free to say "On second thought, nah, I'm gonna try something else." Again, you are still making your decisions based on an assumption that action = check. Instead of looking for what stat you're most likely to succeed on a roll with, you would have more success thinking about what your character could do that seems like it would probably work without a roll. And in actual play, with players who are genuinely interested in engaging with the game instead of trying to prove that my DMing style is bad, that's what I find most of my players doing, including ones who are initially reticent about having to describe actions in terms of in-character approach. Let's not resort to name-calling. Roll-playing is a meaningless term used only to insult playstyles one doesn't like. Aight, man. If that works for you, have fun. Not my style, personally. Umm... ??? No, you might want to re-read my post [/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