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: 7593033" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Sorry if I am phrasing my summaries poorly. </p><p></p><p>You said that you aren't saying your players will take "Better options" just options that have no chance of failure. </p><p></p><p>Also, an option than has no meaningful consequence, you won't call for a roll, it will just auto-succeed. Meaning in the meta (since you are very specific in what you want to mean) those action would be considered actions that cannot fail, because the DM will make them succeed. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But you also keep saying that you aren't trying to claim your players are picking better ways, or more effective ways. </p><p></p><p>They are just the ways that will succeed. Because they come up with ideas that are likely to work. </p><p></p><p>There is an implicit thrust to this, that people not using your set of requirements are getting players who are not taking those actions, who are not coming up with actions that are likely to succeed or ideas that will likely work. If your system creates those types of actions, it seems you are implying we don't.m </p><p></p><p>I understand the order of operations you are operating under, but I don't see what it is meant to achieve that my approach of just asking the players to tell me what they want to do, and being prepared for things to become skill checks, doesn't. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I might have been unclear. </p><p></p><p>I'm not coming up with a plan. I wanted to see what your plan was. </p><p></p><p>You're system incentivizes players to take actions that have no chance of failing, so, in that scenario, what is the foolproof plan that your system would incentivize you to make. I can think of plenty of plans that have a chance of failing, some maybe involving multiple rolls. But I'm not trying to understand myself, I'm trying to understand you. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I was going to respond to the part right above this, but this seemed like a better point. </p><p></p><p>How am I being uncharitable? </p><p></p><p>If there is a chance of success, a chance of failure, and consequences for the action. You will call for a roll. If there are consequences they must make the situation worse for the player than it started out as. There must also be consequences for not acting. The goal is not to roll the dice at all. </p><p></p><p>The only ways to avoid rolling the dice, would be to come up with a plan that cannot fail (removing the requirement of the action having a chance of failure) or to come up with a plan that has no consequence for failure (removing that structure instead). You could also avoid rolling by coming up with a plan that has no chance of success, but that means auto-failure, so that's not ideal. </p><p></p><p>This is what you have said, this is your system. Now, maybe you mean "the action has a decent chance of failure" instead "chance of failure" but just from what you have said, I don't want to assume that. </p><p></p><p>Now, it is likely we would call for rolls much of the same time, I might just call for more than you do. But, I don't see the difference you are trying to put between our two methods unless you are more strict in rulings or consequences than I am. Otherwise, this entire discussion has come about because I occasionally allow rolls you wouldn't instead of any major difference in our adjudication of rolls. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's pretty much how I would handle it. Except for the 10 minutes part (but that has nothing to do with anything we're discussing) I just wouldn't tell them it was a DC 15 check. Might tell them it looks like a fairly basic lock if they have the time to study it. </p><p></p><p>The player asked to do something. They easily can beat the DC due to their abilities. They succeed. </p><p></p><p>Where is the need for your three step process and division between actions and checks? Since that gets resolved the same way... what do you think I'm doing differently? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, you insisted something I said was wrong, because these two things are distinct. I cannot have checks which do not require a roll, because all checks require a roll only actions might not require a roll. </p><p></p><p>And as I try and dig into this to understand why what I was saying was wrong... I'm finding almost no meaningful distinction, nor a reason you had to call out my statement as wrong. You just had to point out that you follow very strict definitions of the terms that have little impact on the game itself? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why do you insist on this? Is it really that hard for you to understand how this works?</p><p></p><p>"I search the room for clues" is an investigation check. Sure, maybe the DM will just hand me a success, but if they do not it will be an investigation check to investigate the room. "I shove the goblin off the cliff" is the shove action, which is an athletics check, maybe the DM just wants to get the fight over with and my fighter will succeed, but if they do not it will athletics opposed by Goblin Dexterity to shove it off, and the goblin will get a Dex save to catch the edge as well. "I listen through the door to hear what they are saying about the Duke" is a perception check. Maybe the DM will just let me succeed, but if they do not it will be a perception check to hear a conversation through a thick wooden door. </p><p></p><p>You want me to divide these, to only think in terms of the actions, but the resolution of actions is done through skill checks. Actions are highly likely to have skill checks follow them. So, thinking only about the action and not considering the mechanics behind the action just seems like poor play. Especially when, if a check is called for at your table, you are going to tell me a DC and a consequence for failure, so I need to already be thinking in mechanical terms not surprised when you say I need to roll perception if I want to accomplish my task. </p><p></p><p>As for me having a problem with a player being able to lay out all their options with precise DCs for each, before wasting any time or making any decision... yeah, I have a problem with that. It kind of ruins the narrative. Just like how I really never liked the VATS system in Fallout 3, because all of a sudden I could stop being in the world and pull up a screen of statistics to make the most mathematical optimal choice. You don't know what the mathematical best choice is between shoving past the guards on the stairs, jumping out the window, or leaping for the chandelier. You just know those are options, you are on the 3rd floor and the floor below the chandelier is at least 10 ft down. You have the information your character has, go ahead an make a choice. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But this has nothing to do with any of what you said. Why is your system about presenting chances of success and failure and consequences for failure and all these different mechanical options if your goal is simply "imagine your character is in the world". That's far simpler. That doesn't require anything you have been talking about. I should know, getting people to think like their character would is my entire goal, yet I never break down their choices into a three step verification process. </p><p></p><p>Sure, I think about the likelihood of success, but once they are thinking like their characters then they almost never make choices that have no chance of success. And they don't need to know the consequences for their actions, because those consequences that aren't obvious aren't things that the character is likely to know anyways. They didn't study the chandelier's structural integrity to see that a mistimed jump is going to cause it to rip out of the ceiling. They don't know that. They just know that they might be able to jump to it as one of their choices for avoiding the guards. </p><p></p><p>You go on about the process like that is the important part, but I'm reaching the same goal without your process and strict definitions. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And you not understanding me, since you kept telling me I was wrong. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You kept calling me out for not doing things your way, indicating that following these rules make for the best game. I've spent far more of our discussion defending why I said a thing, or trying to understand what I'm doing differently than you than I've spent picking apart your style, because you keep insising I'm not getting it and implying your way is the best way. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But you make me highly aware of my stats first. By both assuring that there are consequences for failure if dice are rolled, and by telling me the exact DC, I know my precise chances of success. Once I have that information, I would find it very difficult to ignore that information and make decisions in spite of it. If I know my actions, despite being logical and exactly what I want my character to do, only have a 20% chance of success... then I'm breaking away from the story and instead delving into the mechanics. I know information my character doesn't (the precise odds of success) and so I am going to work off of that information instead of what makes sense for the story. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, I'm supposed to ignore any sort of mechanics until you pull aside the curtain and decide it is time to talk about them? There are plenty of reasons the King might not be swayed by my speech, and plenty of ways I could flub it up. Maybe I'm just against the idea of undoing player actions. I feel like at your table, the closest I would come would be asking "okay, what if I said something kind of like this" instead of staying in character and talking to the king, because the idea of "unringing a bell" once there is a chance for failure bothers the heck out of me. It makes me want to be too risk averse.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See, I disagree that it will happen under the system of consequences, and those consequences being worse than the status quo. </p><p></p><p>If the Fighter wishes not to look like a fool, attempting to do something could be far worse, because then they would be the fool who put their foot in their mouth and ruined the negotiation instead of letting the bard handle it. If there was no guarantee they could make things worse, I would agree with you, but if that guarantee exists then they are more likely to back out and express their desires by convincing the bard to agree with them rather than doing anything directly. </p><p></p><p>"Better to let people think you are a fool than open your mouth and prove it" as the saying goes. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I usually don't. After character creation and deciding what my character is (Cop, doctor, Musician, Jeweler) I have a general understanding of what I'm good at. That does influence my play, a character with high nature I tend to play as knowing a lot and caring a lot about nature. But, I generally respond with what I want my character to do, and then look to see what kind of roll that would be. Whether it is a good roll or not doesn't usually matter, because I've made a decision on my course of action that makes sense for what I think about my character. </p><p></p><p>In the example I was talking about though... I just looked at the highest number on my sheet. I didn't consider this character at all, I just figured out what his highest number was and what action that would correspond to. I went backwards, and then got told that was great roleplaying. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's more about making players aware of what they are asking to do. </p><p></p><p>I've had players who want to do something like cast charm person on the guard, because charming the guard to make them let you go is a good plan in the immediate. I then remind them, that while they are perfectly fine to go forward with that action, they would be using magic to mind control an officer of the law, and that officer will be aware of their tampering after only a minute. </p><p></p><p>Or, wanting to swipe things from an NPC's pocket, and not remembering that when I set the scene, there are over forty thieves watching you all like hawks and they won't take kindly to be stolen from. </p><p></p><p>Generally, I get a "oh right, duh" because it was just the player not fully understanding the scene or the action they were taking. Other times I get the grin and the "OH yeah, that's the point" type answer. And then things progress from there.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7593033, member: 6801228"] Sorry if I am phrasing my summaries poorly. You said that you aren't saying your players will take "Better options" just options that have no chance of failure. Also, an option than has no meaningful consequence, you won't call for a roll, it will just auto-succeed. Meaning in the meta (since you are very specific in what you want to mean) those action would be considered actions that cannot fail, because the DM will make them succeed. But you also keep saying that you aren't trying to claim your players are picking better ways, or more effective ways. They are just the ways that will succeed. Because they come up with ideas that are likely to work. There is an implicit thrust to this, that people not using your set of requirements are getting players who are not taking those actions, who are not coming up with actions that are likely to succeed or ideas that will likely work. If your system creates those types of actions, it seems you are implying we don't.m I understand the order of operations you are operating under, but I don't see what it is meant to achieve that my approach of just asking the players to tell me what they want to do, and being prepared for things to become skill checks, doesn't. I might have been unclear. I'm not coming up with a plan. I wanted to see what your plan was. You're system incentivizes players to take actions that have no chance of failing, so, in that scenario, what is the foolproof plan that your system would incentivize you to make. I can think of plenty of plans that have a chance of failing, some maybe involving multiple rolls. But I'm not trying to understand myself, I'm trying to understand you. I was going to respond to the part right above this, but this seemed like a better point. How am I being uncharitable? If there is a chance of success, a chance of failure, and consequences for the action. You will call for a roll. If there are consequences they must make the situation worse for the player than it started out as. There must also be consequences for not acting. The goal is not to roll the dice at all. The only ways to avoid rolling the dice, would be to come up with a plan that cannot fail (removing the requirement of the action having a chance of failure) or to come up with a plan that has no consequence for failure (removing that structure instead). You could also avoid rolling by coming up with a plan that has no chance of success, but that means auto-failure, so that's not ideal. This is what you have said, this is your system. Now, maybe you mean "the action has a decent chance of failure" instead "chance of failure" but just from what you have said, I don't want to assume that. Now, it is likely we would call for rolls much of the same time, I might just call for more than you do. But, I don't see the difference you are trying to put between our two methods unless you are more strict in rulings or consequences than I am. Otherwise, this entire discussion has come about because I occasionally allow rolls you wouldn't instead of any major difference in our adjudication of rolls. That's pretty much how I would handle it. Except for the 10 minutes part (but that has nothing to do with anything we're discussing) I just wouldn't tell them it was a DC 15 check. Might tell them it looks like a fairly basic lock if they have the time to study it. The player asked to do something. They easily can beat the DC due to their abilities. They succeed. Where is the need for your three step process and division between actions and checks? Since that gets resolved the same way... what do you think I'm doing differently? Right, you insisted something I said was wrong, because these two things are distinct. I cannot have checks which do not require a roll, because all checks require a roll only actions might not require a roll. And as I try and dig into this to understand why what I was saying was wrong... I'm finding almost no meaningful distinction, nor a reason you had to call out my statement as wrong. You just had to point out that you follow very strict definitions of the terms that have little impact on the game itself? Why? Why do you insist on this? Is it really that hard for you to understand how this works? "I search the room for clues" is an investigation check. Sure, maybe the DM will just hand me a success, but if they do not it will be an investigation check to investigate the room. "I shove the goblin off the cliff" is the shove action, which is an athletics check, maybe the DM just wants to get the fight over with and my fighter will succeed, but if they do not it will athletics opposed by Goblin Dexterity to shove it off, and the goblin will get a Dex save to catch the edge as well. "I listen through the door to hear what they are saying about the Duke" is a perception check. Maybe the DM will just let me succeed, but if they do not it will be a perception check to hear a conversation through a thick wooden door. You want me to divide these, to only think in terms of the actions, but the resolution of actions is done through skill checks. Actions are highly likely to have skill checks follow them. So, thinking only about the action and not considering the mechanics behind the action just seems like poor play. Especially when, if a check is called for at your table, you are going to tell me a DC and a consequence for failure, so I need to already be thinking in mechanical terms not surprised when you say I need to roll perception if I want to accomplish my task. As for me having a problem with a player being able to lay out all their options with precise DCs for each, before wasting any time or making any decision... yeah, I have a problem with that. It kind of ruins the narrative. Just like how I really never liked the VATS system in Fallout 3, because all of a sudden I could stop being in the world and pull up a screen of statistics to make the most mathematical optimal choice. You don't know what the mathematical best choice is between shoving past the guards on the stairs, jumping out the window, or leaping for the chandelier. You just know those are options, you are on the 3rd floor and the floor below the chandelier is at least 10 ft down. You have the information your character has, go ahead an make a choice. But this has nothing to do with any of what you said. Why is your system about presenting chances of success and failure and consequences for failure and all these different mechanical options if your goal is simply "imagine your character is in the world". That's far simpler. That doesn't require anything you have been talking about. I should know, getting people to think like their character would is my entire goal, yet I never break down their choices into a three step verification process. Sure, I think about the likelihood of success, but once they are thinking like their characters then they almost never make choices that have no chance of success. And they don't need to know the consequences for their actions, because those consequences that aren't obvious aren't things that the character is likely to know anyways. They didn't study the chandelier's structural integrity to see that a mistimed jump is going to cause it to rip out of the ceiling. They don't know that. They just know that they might be able to jump to it as one of their choices for avoiding the guards. You go on about the process like that is the important part, but I'm reaching the same goal without your process and strict definitions. And you not understanding me, since you kept telling me I was wrong. You kept calling me out for not doing things your way, indicating that following these rules make for the best game. I've spent far more of our discussion defending why I said a thing, or trying to understand what I'm doing differently than you than I've spent picking apart your style, because you keep insising I'm not getting it and implying your way is the best way. But you make me highly aware of my stats first. By both assuring that there are consequences for failure if dice are rolled, and by telling me the exact DC, I know my precise chances of success. Once I have that information, I would find it very difficult to ignore that information and make decisions in spite of it. If I know my actions, despite being logical and exactly what I want my character to do, only have a 20% chance of success... then I'm breaking away from the story and instead delving into the mechanics. I know information my character doesn't (the precise odds of success) and so I am going to work off of that information instead of what makes sense for the story. So, I'm supposed to ignore any sort of mechanics until you pull aside the curtain and decide it is time to talk about them? There are plenty of reasons the King might not be swayed by my speech, and plenty of ways I could flub it up. Maybe I'm just against the idea of undoing player actions. I feel like at your table, the closest I would come would be asking "okay, what if I said something kind of like this" instead of staying in character and talking to the king, because the idea of "unringing a bell" once there is a chance for failure bothers the heck out of me. It makes me want to be too risk averse. See, I disagree that it will happen under the system of consequences, and those consequences being worse than the status quo. If the Fighter wishes not to look like a fool, attempting to do something could be far worse, because then they would be the fool who put their foot in their mouth and ruined the negotiation instead of letting the bard handle it. If there was no guarantee they could make things worse, I would agree with you, but if that guarantee exists then they are more likely to back out and express their desires by convincing the bard to agree with them rather than doing anything directly. "Better to let people think you are a fool than open your mouth and prove it" as the saying goes. I usually don't. After character creation and deciding what my character is (Cop, doctor, Musician, Jeweler) I have a general understanding of what I'm good at. That does influence my play, a character with high nature I tend to play as knowing a lot and caring a lot about nature. But, I generally respond with what I want my character to do, and then look to see what kind of roll that would be. Whether it is a good roll or not doesn't usually matter, because I've made a decision on my course of action that makes sense for what I think about my character. In the example I was talking about though... I just looked at the highest number on my sheet. I didn't consider this character at all, I just figured out what his highest number was and what action that would correspond to. I went backwards, and then got told that was great roleplaying. It's more about making players aware of what they are asking to do. I've had players who want to do something like cast charm person on the guard, because charming the guard to make them let you go is a good plan in the immediate. I then remind them, that while they are perfectly fine to go forward with that action, they would be using magic to mind control an officer of the law, and that officer will be aware of their tampering after only a minute. Or, wanting to swipe things from an NPC's pocket, and not remembering that when I set the scene, there are over forty thieves watching you all like hawks and they won't take kindly to be stolen from. Generally, I get a "oh right, duh" because it was just the player not fully understanding the scene or the action they were taking. Other times I get the grin and the "OH yeah, that's the point" type answer. And then things progress from there. [/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