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: 7592520" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>So, "actions that don't have a chance of failure" are not "better options"? </p><p></p><p>And, if there is no cost for the attempt of consequence of failure, they auto-succeed correct? So, those are options that don't have a chance of failure... I guess that is in the meta since the actions might have a chance to fail in the fiction, but cannot fail in the meta since them failing wouldn't propel the story forward. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You say this like it is so easy, that people can just decide to take actions that have no chance of failing. And, now not only are those options better, but they are more effective approaches as well. </p><p></p><p>I'm curious, thinking on my character who is locked in a prison cell. Let us say there is a guard, so you won't auto-success from there being no consequences, what is the best and most effective option that leaves no chance of failure? What would a warlock player do, that uses no mechanics and no skills to automatically succeed in escaping? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Your own statements. There must be a consequence for failure. There must be consequences for not acting. Your only hope as a player is to come up with a plan so iron-clad that it has a near zero percent chance of failure, or risk the situation deteriorating. These are the statements you have been arguing, that is where I am getting this idea from. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But this is a distinction you have added to the game. And how do you explain this to someone. "Your action could fail, but you can't fail because you cannot fail the roll" It reads like an oxymoron. The only reason is so you can claim some sort of moratorium on checks, that checks must be this other thing that can't interact with the fiction except through specific gates, but I don't get why. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My confusion comes from why we need to divide this. A check that cannot fail and an action that can not fail lead to the same narrative result. The same thing happens, either way. If you move 3 ft or 1 yd you have moved the same distance. Yet, you want to divide this, you want to break it into two parts... and the more I think of it the more confused I am. </p><p></p><p>If I don't separate "Actions which may lead to a check" from "checks that are called for" I will confuse checks with actions which will lead to me using the wrong name? Maybe you gave me a clear and concise example of how exactly these methods differ a while back, but I don't see it. We are doing the same thing, you just insist on adding extra layers and rules about how it happens. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So it is all about having the proper presentation for you? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course I'm still thinking in terms of the check. So are you. </p><p></p><p>Does the action have a chance to succeed? Does the action have a chance to fail? Does the action have consequences? Am I good at that check? </p><p></p><p>I can work through the entire process. If there was no chance of failure, of course I'd just do it. There is no chance of failure. Heck, if I can game your system to figure out when there is no consequence you'll imagine large enough to warrant a check, I'll try those too. Not because I want to play my character or try to be clever, but because having a 100% guarantee is an awesome reason to do something when my back is against the wall. </p><p></p><p>And from this statement, I can just keep talking to you, laying out a large variety of options, and just pick the one you give the best odds of success. Everytime I hit a point of making a check I can back up, consider a different path, and see if you give that one better odds. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>An action that has a chance of success, An action that has a chance of failure. An action that has consequences. Once I know all three of those, I know you will call for a roll. How am I supposed to come up with something that has zero chance of failure? What kinds of things allow for that? </p><p></p><p>And, how does your system of enforcing all these rules encourage engaging the story? </p><p></p><p>My rules for players wanting to do something? Tell me what you want to do. That's the only big rule. If you are too vague, I'll ask for some clarification until I understand what is going on. If they want to do something silly and impossible like throw a mountain, I'll tell them no. </p><p></p><p>I don't need three questions to be confirmed. I don't need "I hear you want to do this" goal and approach questioning. I say "here's the story, here's the scene. What do you do?" </p><p></p><p>You are adding all these rules and conditions and divisions into the game and claiming it makes the game better, that my way is worse. But as we dig into these rules that you claim are absolute, you seem to be getting frustrated and tied into knots over it. I want to engage in the story, not worry about what extra consequences I'm pulling down upon the party by trying something that makes sense but mechanically would be a poor choice. Or if I'm taking the correct course of action that has no chance of failing. </p><p></p><p>I just want to follow the story. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not trying to name call, but somehow you seem to think the most important thing is the statistics. You are praising looking to the highest mechanical value for finding your successful strategies, instead of what makes the most sense. </p><p></p><p>The barbarian shouldn't back out of rolling persuasion just because they aren't good at it, especially if it was their idea and speech that could switch the tide. That is the moment they should roll, they made a narrative move and it could be awesome, but you seem to advocate them backing up, checking the numbers, looking for ways to nudge in guidance or some bardic inspiration. None of that has to do with their Role in the story. That's all rolling the dice. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah, you were disagreeing with their assertion of making something up, obviously you've considered all the consequences before the players declared their action. Not considering them on the spot. </p><p></p><p>But, since their point was "I don't require consequences for failure to roll the dice" and your response was "If there is no consequence, we don't roll the dice" you can see how you might come across as missing the point.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7592520, member: 6801228"] So, "actions that don't have a chance of failure" are not "better options"? And, if there is no cost for the attempt of consequence of failure, they auto-succeed correct? So, those are options that don't have a chance of failure... I guess that is in the meta since the actions might have a chance to fail in the fiction, but cannot fail in the meta since them failing wouldn't propel the story forward. You say this like it is so easy, that people can just decide to take actions that have no chance of failing. And, now not only are those options better, but they are more effective approaches as well. I'm curious, thinking on my character who is locked in a prison cell. Let us say there is a guard, so you won't auto-success from there being no consequences, what is the best and most effective option that leaves no chance of failure? What would a warlock player do, that uses no mechanics and no skills to automatically succeed in escaping? Your own statements. There must be a consequence for failure. There must be consequences for not acting. Your only hope as a player is to come up with a plan so iron-clad that it has a near zero percent chance of failure, or risk the situation deteriorating. These are the statements you have been arguing, that is where I am getting this idea from. But this is a distinction you have added to the game. And how do you explain this to someone. "Your action could fail, but you can't fail because you cannot fail the roll" It reads like an oxymoron. The only reason is so you can claim some sort of moratorium on checks, that checks must be this other thing that can't interact with the fiction except through specific gates, but I don't get why. My confusion comes from why we need to divide this. A check that cannot fail and an action that can not fail lead to the same narrative result. The same thing happens, either way. If you move 3 ft or 1 yd you have moved the same distance. Yet, you want to divide this, you want to break it into two parts... and the more I think of it the more confused I am. If I don't separate "Actions which may lead to a check" from "checks that are called for" I will confuse checks with actions which will lead to me using the wrong name? Maybe you gave me a clear and concise example of how exactly these methods differ a while back, but I don't see it. We are doing the same thing, you just insist on adding extra layers and rules about how it happens. So it is all about having the proper presentation for you? Of course I'm still thinking in terms of the check. So are you. Does the action have a chance to succeed? Does the action have a chance to fail? Does the action have consequences? Am I good at that check? I can work through the entire process. If there was no chance of failure, of course I'd just do it. There is no chance of failure. Heck, if I can game your system to figure out when there is no consequence you'll imagine large enough to warrant a check, I'll try those too. Not because I want to play my character or try to be clever, but because having a 100% guarantee is an awesome reason to do something when my back is against the wall. And from this statement, I can just keep talking to you, laying out a large variety of options, and just pick the one you give the best odds of success. Everytime I hit a point of making a check I can back up, consider a different path, and see if you give that one better odds. An action that has a chance of success, An action that has a chance of failure. An action that has consequences. Once I know all three of those, I know you will call for a roll. How am I supposed to come up with something that has zero chance of failure? What kinds of things allow for that? And, how does your system of enforcing all these rules encourage engaging the story? My rules for players wanting to do something? Tell me what you want to do. That's the only big rule. If you are too vague, I'll ask for some clarification until I understand what is going on. If they want to do something silly and impossible like throw a mountain, I'll tell them no. I don't need three questions to be confirmed. I don't need "I hear you want to do this" goal and approach questioning. I say "here's the story, here's the scene. What do you do?" You are adding all these rules and conditions and divisions into the game and claiming it makes the game better, that my way is worse. But as we dig into these rules that you claim are absolute, you seem to be getting frustrated and tied into knots over it. I want to engage in the story, not worry about what extra consequences I'm pulling down upon the party by trying something that makes sense but mechanically would be a poor choice. Or if I'm taking the correct course of action that has no chance of failing. I just want to follow the story. I'm not trying to name call, but somehow you seem to think the most important thing is the statistics. You are praising looking to the highest mechanical value for finding your successful strategies, instead of what makes the most sense. The barbarian shouldn't back out of rolling persuasion just because they aren't good at it, especially if it was their idea and speech that could switch the tide. That is the moment they should roll, they made a narrative move and it could be awesome, but you seem to advocate them backing up, checking the numbers, looking for ways to nudge in guidance or some bardic inspiration. None of that has to do with their Role in the story. That's all rolling the dice. Ah, you were disagreeing with their assertion of making something up, obviously you've considered all the consequences before the players declared their action. Not considering them on the spot. But, since their point was "I don't require consequences for failure to roll the dice" and your response was "If there is no consequence, we don't roll the dice" you can see how you might come across as missing the point. [/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