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: 7592558" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>What are you talking about?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Look, I don't know how much more plainly I can say it. At my table, if you think of an idea that seems like it would probably work, chances are pretty good that it just will. If there is a risk involved, I will tell you so, and give you the option to proceed, or change tactics. It's really not that hard. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't know, I didn't plan out a foolproof escape plan for you. Try something, and I'll use my best judgment to adjudicate it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Then you are still not understanding me. If there is not a consequence for failure, I'm not going to make one up out of thin air. I'm just going to let you succeed.</p><p></p><p></p><p>What does this even mean?</p><p></p><p></p><p>In other words, you are reading my statements as uncharitably as possible, and then claiming that I am uncharitable in my adjudication. It's clear that you are not making an earnest attempt to understand my DMing style, so unless you actually come to one of my games to see it firsthand, you're just going to have to take my word for it that it is really not that hard to be successful.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it's really not. The Player's handbook describes an ability check as follows:</p><p></p><p>That is distinct from an action, which the PHB describes this way:</p><p></p><p>An action is something a character does in the world. A check is a mechanical process a player might or might not need to perform to help the DM determine the outcome of an action.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. It doesn't require an explanation. Here's how it actually goes in my game:</p><p><strong>Rogue:</strong> I use my theives' tools to pick the lock.</p><p><strong>Me:</strong> Ok, that'll take about 10 minutes and a successful DC 15 Dexterity check.</p><p><strong>Rogue:</strong> I have +7 with Thieves' Tools and Reliable Talent, do I still need to roll?</p><p><strong>Me:</strong> Nah, you're good, you can totally pick this lock with 10 minutes of work.</p><p><strong>Rogue:</strong> Cool, let's do it!</p><p><strong>Me:</strong> *Makes note of 10 minutes passing* Ok, the door unlocks with a click.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Look, all I'm doing is pointing out that action and check are two different things. You're the one confusing yourself with all this meaningless pedantry.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No. "I roll perception" and "I listen at the door for the sound of other creatures" are qualitatively different.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, you're still thinking in terms of <em>action=check</em>. You should be thinking in terms of action as the thing your character does and check as a mechanical process that is sometimes required of you to perform to find out what happens as a result of your character's action.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Something wrong with that?</p><p></p><p></p><p>By imagining your character as an entity in a world that behaves more or less like the real one. Think about what that character might do in the situation being narrated, and what might happen as a result. If you are uncertain of the results, there's a good chance it will require a check. If you're pretty confident about what you think would happen as a result, there's a good chance that is exactly what will happen. Describe your character's actions accordingly, and I will do the same. If I am uncertain of the outcome, I will ask you for a check to help me decide what happens. Easy.</p><p></p><p></p><p>By making the above the best way to succeed.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Me too. The fact that you think the process looks different in my games is a clear indication that you are not understanding me.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The three questions are entirely on my end. The only thing I need from the players is what they want to accomplish and what their character does to try to pull that off. "I hear ____, I need to know ____" is just my preferred way of asking for clarification. I like that format because it acknowledges and honors what I was able to infer from what the player did say, while making it clear what I still require clarification about, and gives them the opportunity to correct me if my inference was incorrect.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Woah, back up a second there. When did I ever make such a claim? That would be a very strange thing for me to have done, because it's not something I believe.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm getting frustrated by your seemingly deliberate attempts to misunderstand me. I have been quite clear. My method is not complex. You are the one tying yourself into knots trying to make it more complicated than it is.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So just engage in the story. I promise you, that is the best way to be successful in my games. Just imagine the scenario, imagine your character in it, describe your character doing whatever you think makes sense for your character to do, and most of the time, I'll just describe what happens as a result, which most of the time will be about what you expected to happen. Sometimes, I will tell you that I need you to make a check to determine what happens next, and what will happen if you fail. Then you can decide if you want to go through with that action, shore up your odds with some Bardic Inspiration or whatever, or back out and try something else.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not at all. The story is the most important thing. Do what you think your character would do. If what your character would do is avoid things they are not good at when stakes are high... That seems plenty realistic to me. And it's none of my business whether or not you arrived at that decision by looking at your stats.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, this misunderstanding of my method is coming from you thinking in terms of action = check. If the barbarian's player has an idea for an awesome speech they think could switch the tide, they should just go ahead and give that speech. If they aren't an expert wordsmith and can't think of a way to make it sound good, that's fine, they can phrase it in terms of goal and approach, "I try to convince the king by playing to his sense of honor and tradition" or whatever. There's a good chance they won't <em>need</em> to roll. You're so worried about not wanting to have to make a check that you might have a chance of failing, you're completely overlooking the very good possibility that no check will be called for. And if it will be, I'll give you fair warning. There is absolutely no risk in describing a social action with your 8-charisma barbarian. Worst case scenario, I'll let you know exactly what the risks are, and if you're still that worried about failing, you can say "nah, nevermind."</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, their point was "I don't make up consequences just because a roll was called for" and my response was "neither do I." I call for a roll <em>because</em> there are consequences for the action failing, not the other way around.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7592558, member: 6779196"] What are you talking about? Look, I don't know how much more plainly I can say it. At my table, if you think of an idea that seems like it would probably work, chances are pretty good that it just will. If there is a risk involved, I will tell you so, and give you the option to proceed, or change tactics. It's really not that hard. I don't know, I didn't plan out a foolproof escape plan for you. Try something, and I'll use my best judgment to adjudicate it. Then you are still not understanding me. If there is not a consequence for failure, I'm not going to make one up out of thin air. I'm just going to let you succeed. What does this even mean? In other words, you are reading my statements as uncharitably as possible, and then claiming that I am uncharitable in my adjudication. It's clear that you are not making an earnest attempt to understand my DMing style, so unless you actually come to one of my games to see it firsthand, you're just going to have to take my word for it that it is really not that hard to be successful. No, it's really not. The Player's handbook describes an ability check as follows: That is distinct from an action, which the PHB describes this way: An action is something a character does in the world. A check is a mechanical process a player might or might not need to perform to help the DM determine the outcome of an action. You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. It doesn't require an explanation. Here's how it actually goes in my game: [B]Rogue:[/B] I use my theives' tools to pick the lock. [B]Me:[/B] Ok, that'll take about 10 minutes and a successful DC 15 Dexterity check. [B]Rogue:[/B] I have +7 with Thieves' Tools and Reliable Talent, do I still need to roll? [B]Me:[/B] Nah, you're good, you can totally pick this lock with 10 minutes of work. [B]Rogue:[/B] Cool, let's do it! [B]Me:[/B] *Makes note of 10 minutes passing* Ok, the door unlocks with a click. Look, all I'm doing is pointing out that action and check are two different things. You're the one confusing yourself with all this meaningless pedantry. No. "I roll perception" and "I listen at the door for the sound of other creatures" are qualitatively different. No, you're still thinking in terms of [I]action=check[/I]. You should be thinking in terms of action as the thing your character does and check as a mechanical process that is sometimes required of you to perform to find out what happens as a result of your character's action. Something wrong with that? By imagining your character as an entity in a world that behaves more or less like the real one. Think about what that character might do in the situation being narrated, and what might happen as a result. If you are uncertain of the results, there's a good chance it will require a check. If you're pretty confident about what you think would happen as a result, there's a good chance that is exactly what will happen. Describe your character's actions accordingly, and I will do the same. If I am uncertain of the outcome, I will ask you for a check to help me decide what happens. Easy. By making the above the best way to succeed. Me too. The fact that you think the process looks different in my games is a clear indication that you are not understanding me. The three questions are entirely on my end. The only thing I need from the players is what they want to accomplish and what their character does to try to pull that off. "I hear ____, I need to know ____" is just my preferred way of asking for clarification. I like that format because it acknowledges and honors what I was able to infer from what the player did say, while making it clear what I still require clarification about, and gives them the opportunity to correct me if my inference was incorrect. Woah, back up a second there. When did I ever make such a claim? That would be a very strange thing for me to have done, because it's not something I believe. I'm getting frustrated by your seemingly deliberate attempts to misunderstand me. I have been quite clear. My method is not complex. You are the one tying yourself into knots trying to make it more complicated than it is. So just engage in the story. I promise you, that is the best way to be successful in my games. Just imagine the scenario, imagine your character in it, describe your character doing whatever you think makes sense for your character to do, and most of the time, I'll just describe what happens as a result, which most of the time will be about what you expected to happen. Sometimes, I will tell you that I need you to make a check to determine what happens next, and what will happen if you fail. Then you can decide if you want to go through with that action, shore up your odds with some Bardic Inspiration or whatever, or back out and try something else. Not at all. The story is the most important thing. Do what you think your character would do. If what your character would do is avoid things they are not good at when stakes are high... That seems plenty realistic to me. And it's none of my business whether or not you arrived at that decision by looking at your stats. Again, this misunderstanding of my method is coming from you thinking in terms of action = check. If the barbarian's player has an idea for an awesome speech they think could switch the tide, they should just go ahead and give that speech. If they aren't an expert wordsmith and can't think of a way to make it sound good, that's fine, they can phrase it in terms of goal and approach, "I try to convince the king by playing to his sense of honor and tradition" or whatever. There's a good chance they won't [I]need[/I] to roll. You're so worried about not wanting to have to make a check that you might have a chance of failing, you're completely overlooking the very good possibility that no check will be called for. And if it will be, I'll give you fair warning. There is absolutely no risk in describing a social action with your 8-charisma barbarian. Worst case scenario, I'll let you know exactly what the risks are, and if you're still that worried about failing, you can say "nah, nevermind." No, their point was "I don't make up consequences just because a roll was called for" and my response was "neither do I." I call for a roll [I]because[/I] there are consequences for the action failing, not the other way around. [/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