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: 7592660" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>To be honest this doesn't make sense to me, because the two things aren't related.</p><p></p><p>The idea of a <em>cost for failure</em> is about what is at stake in an action declaration. If something is at stake then there is, almost inherently I think, a cost for failure - because if you fail you lose out on what was at stake. (And if nothing is at stake, then what would a check be for?)</p><p></p><p>But the idea of <em>creativity</em> seems to have nothing to do with this. Sometimes being creative might increase the chances of success (eg if a player comes up with a way to achieve some goal using a method in which his/her PC is strong rather than weak). Sometimes being creative might have little impact on the chance of success (eg defeating a group of enemies by using a Fly spell to strafe them might seem more creative than blowing them up using Fireball, but the chance of success may be comparable in both cases - especially because, in D&D, spell casting is generally automatically successful). Sometimes being creative might even reduce the chance of success, but be desirable nevertheless (eg killing the group of enemies by luring them over a cliff using Major Image might be trickier than either strafing them or blowing them up, but the elegance might be an independent pay-off of some sort).</p><p></p><p>They seem two quite independent phenomena.</p><p></p><p>I think that these two things are connected: if gameplay consists primarily of narratively important events then (i) dice rolling won't be removed, and (ii) there will almost always be pressure on the PCs which, if their players' checks fail, provides a springboard for the narration of consequences for failure.</p><p></p><p>Well, as my previous post indicates I think RPGing is more fun when the main focus of play is on narratively important events: that is, the same sort of stuff that tends to be the focus of adventure fiction and drama.</p><p></p><p>And my own experience in this sort of game is that if players have the choice between declaring an action that their PC will have only a modest chance of success in, or just conceding whatever it is that is at stake, then they will declare the action. For instance, I see this in my 4e game quite regularly - the player of the low-CHA fighter with no social skills nevertheless has his character talk to NPCs and try to persuade them of things, because (1) the player doesn't want his PC to just be standing there looking like a fool, and (2) because he ha views about what the NPCs should do, and wants those views to be realised. It's the same sort of reason that means that the wizard fights back when attacked, even though the wizard is a relatively weak combatant.</p><p></p><p>Obviously I can't speak for other posters. But my answer to this question is Yes. (Although once the check is called for, if we do the maths and see that it can't fail - eg +4 or greater bonus on the DC 5 check - then the dice may not physically need to be rolled.)</p><p></p><p>I'm intrigued that you divorce these things. In RPGing I tend to find them closely connected (although not necessarily co-extensive).</p><p></p><p>Well, Gygax in his PHB (p 18) did say that "The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated by character class (or multi-class)." In your example, the role is that of being a physically weak but magically puissant and cunning warlock - that's the role you're playing in deciding to have your PC rely on magical deception rather than brute strength to escape the cell.</p><p></p><p>This is a somewhat separate thing from the other points in this post: on its face, what you say here seems to be the GM telling the player what action to declare or not to declare.</p><p></p><p>I appreciate that, especially in the heat of the moment, the GM can have a special duty to ensure that action declarations fit the genre and preconceptions of the game, and respect good taste and the established fiction. A silly example given by Luke Crane in a Burning Wheel rulebook: "No roll is allowed for the chance to find beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet!"</p><p></p><p>But I can't easily imagine a D&D game where mind controlling a guard into letting one go would be genre-breaking or bad taste in this way. It seems more like the very paradigm of genre-appropriateness: if it's good enough for Obi-Wan, it's good enough for a PC in a FRPG!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7592660, member: 42582"] To be honest this doesn't make sense to me, because the two things aren't related. The idea of a [i]cost for failure[/i] is about what is at stake in an action declaration. If something is at stake then there is, almost inherently I think, a cost for failure - because if you fail you lose out on what was at stake. (And if nothing is at stake, then what would a check be for?) But the idea of [i]creativity[/i] seems to have nothing to do with this. Sometimes being creative might increase the chances of success (eg if a player comes up with a way to achieve some goal using a method in which his/her PC is strong rather than weak). Sometimes being creative might have little impact on the chance of success (eg defeating a group of enemies by using a Fly spell to strafe them might seem more creative than blowing them up using Fireball, but the chance of success may be comparable in both cases - especially because, in D&D, spell casting is generally automatically successful). Sometimes being creative might even reduce the chance of success, but be desirable nevertheless (eg killing the group of enemies by luring them over a cliff using Major Image might be trickier than either strafing them or blowing them up, but the elegance might be an independent pay-off of some sort). They seem two quite independent phenomena. I think that these two things are connected: if gameplay consists primarily of narratively important events then (i) dice rolling won't be removed, and (ii) there will almost always be pressure on the PCs which, if their players' checks fail, provides a springboard for the narration of consequences for failure. Well, as my previous post indicates I think RPGing is more fun when the main focus of play is on narratively important events: that is, the same sort of stuff that tends to be the focus of adventure fiction and drama. And my own experience in this sort of game is that if players have the choice between declaring an action that their PC will have only a modest chance of success in, or just conceding whatever it is that is at stake, then they will declare the action. For instance, I see this in my 4e game quite regularly - the player of the low-CHA fighter with no social skills nevertheless has his character talk to NPCs and try to persuade them of things, because (1) the player doesn't want his PC to just be standing there looking like a fool, and (2) because he ha views about what the NPCs should do, and wants those views to be realised. It's the same sort of reason that means that the wizard fights back when attacked, even though the wizard is a relatively weak combatant. Obviously I can't speak for other posters. But my answer to this question is Yes. (Although once the check is called for, if we do the maths and see that it can't fail - eg +4 or greater bonus on the DC 5 check - then the dice may not physically need to be rolled.) I'm intrigued that you divorce these things. In RPGing I tend to find them closely connected (although not necessarily co-extensive). Well, Gygax in his PHB (p 18) did say that "The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated by character class (or multi-class)." In your example, the role is that of being a physically weak but magically puissant and cunning warlock - that's the role you're playing in deciding to have your PC rely on magical deception rather than brute strength to escape the cell. This is a somewhat separate thing from the other points in this post: on its face, what you say here seems to be the GM telling the player what action to declare or not to declare. I appreciate that, especially in the heat of the moment, the GM can have a special duty to ensure that action declarations fit the genre and preconceptions of the game, and respect good taste and the established fiction. A silly example given by Luke Crane in a Burning Wheel rulebook: "No roll is allowed for the chance to find beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet!" But I can't easily imagine a D&D game where mind controlling a guard into letting one go would be genre-breaking or bad taste in this way. It seems more like the very paradigm of genre-appropriateness: if it's good enough for Obi-Wan, it's good enough for a PC in a FRPG! [/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