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: 7595159" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Yeah, fair point, that wasn't really a reasonable ask. That said, I do appreciate you actually digging back through all that. It certainly helps me see where I've been less diplomatic than I should have been, and for that I do apologize.</p><p></p><p>[sblock]</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not seeing how this is a jab at your playstyle at all. To me, this is entirely a statement of my own personal preference. I consider vague statements to be a poor strategy for success in D&D, because doing so leaves the DM little choice but to use the dice to determine success or failure first, and then interpret what the specifics of the action must have been to explain the result. I prefer when the player gives the specifics of the action first, which the DM uses to determine the success or failure, employing the dice if and only if success or failure can not be determined by the specifics of the action alone. The reason I prefer the latter method is that the prior method leaves more room for failure due to a low roll than the latter, making it a poorer (read: less likely to result in success) strategy, from a player's perspective. I don't see that as a value judgment on the former method. I don't think there's anything at all wrong with preferring the former method, I'm just explaining what my preference is and why.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think the results are the same. If you state a goal and approach, the possible results are:</p><p>1.) The approach does not have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal. You fail.</p><p>2.) The approach does have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, but does not have a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the goal. You succeed.</p><p>3.) The approach does have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, and a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the goal, but there are no consequences for failure. You succeed (or you fail, but failure is inconsequential anyway, so you eventually succeed if you keep at it long enough.)</p><p>4.) The approach does have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the goal, and a consequence for failure. You must make a check, but you do not beat the DC. You fail.</p><p>5.) The approach does have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the goal, and a consequence for failure. You must make a check, and you beat the DC. You succeed.</p><p></p><p>Three of the five possible outcomes result in success. On the other hand, if you make a check first and the outcome of the check is used to determine the narrative, the possible results are:</p><p>1.) You make a check but do not beat the DC. You fail. It is then determined what your character did that resulted in this failure.</p><p>2.) You make a check and beat the DC. You succeed. It is then determined what your character did that resulted in this success.</p><p></p><p>Only two possible outcomes, and only one of them results in success.</p><p></p><p>I'll concede that calling it "putting the cart before the horse" is a somewhat judgmental way to express that, and for that I apologize. Does this un help explain what I mean when I call it a "poor strategy"? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, this was a big misunderstanding, and I apologize for my part in that. On the subject of the "overstepping bounds" part though, I think you may be reading more into that phrasing than was intended by it, though to your credit, I probably should have unpacked it more. I strongly believe that the player should have sole and ultimate authority over the thoughts and actions of their character. I, personally, despise when a DM narrates my character's actions, and I endeavor never to narrate the actions of the player characters in my games. It is my opinion that the DM's role is to narrate the world, and how it reacts to the player-characters' actions, but never what the player-characters' actions are. I believe that this division of roles is well-supported in the text of the rule books. This is not to say that I hold anything against groups who mutually agree that they are ok with the DM narrating PCs' actions. If this is how you like to play, I see nothing wrong with you playing that way. And the DM of such a group is not really overstepping their bounds, because the social contract of the group, whether implicitly or explicitly, has redefined those boundaries. Game on, don't let my distaste for that style of play keep you from having fun any way you want.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't remember that specific exchange, but if I ignored it or missed it, sorry.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think it is you who is assuming that I'm contrasting my style with yours here. Again, I don't know what your style is, except for the fact that you do allow players to initiate skill checks, and you do not treat consequences for failure as a prerequisite for a roll. I was contrasting my current style with my style before I adopted the goal and approach technique. Thats why I specifically said, "<em>in my experience</em>, they don't tend to" and, "Before I adopted the goal and approach style, (blah). With goal and approach, (blah)." I made an explicit effort to frame this in terms of my personal experience and how that experiences shaped my preferences today.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, the pot/kettle comments were over the line, I'm sorry for them. In my defense, your response to my comment about your position being a strange hill to die on was "I'm only dying because I'm being stabbed" or something to that effect, which genuinely made it seem to me that you had not understood the idiom. It was not my intent to be condescending in explaining the turn of phrase, but I accept responsibility for that misunderstanding.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, for sure, that's not what I want either. Again, thanks for actually going back through so much of the thread, seems like it has helped clear things up a bit. Clearly, while it has not been my <em>intent</em> to attack anyone else's playstyle, I have not made my actual intent as clear as I should have.</p><p>[/sblock]</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's cool, man. If that works for you, keep doing your thing. Personally, I used to run the game much more like how you describe here, and it did not work for me <em>at all</em>. My experience is my own, and it's natural that it will diverge from yours. But it's the only experience I can speak from. That experience has led me to prefer the goal and approach style. It works much better for me, for the reasons that have been gone over exhaustively in this thread, and in my experience, my players enjoy the game much more now than they did when I ran the game more like what you describe here. But that's not meant to denigrate your play style. If it works for you, that's fantastic.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I just don't see me describing an action as a player is going to give you any additional insight into my DMing style. It might give <em>me</em> insight into <em>your</em> DMing style, but that's not really something I'm especially interested in pursuing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's cool. It has been an emotionally charged conversation, and I haven't exactly been devoting much effort to trying to diffuse or de-escalate. I appreciate the apology, and I apologize in turn for my own part in getting the conversation to this point.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7595159, member: 6779196"] Yeah, fair point, that wasn't really a reasonable ask. That said, I do appreciate you actually digging back through all that. It certainly helps me see where I've been less diplomatic than I should have been, and for that I do apologize. [sblock] I'm not seeing how this is a jab at your playstyle at all. To me, this is entirely a statement of my own personal preference. I consider vague statements to be a poor strategy for success in D&D, because doing so leaves the DM little choice but to use the dice to determine success or failure first, and then interpret what the specifics of the action must have been to explain the result. I prefer when the player gives the specifics of the action first, which the DM uses to determine the success or failure, employing the dice if and only if success or failure can not be determined by the specifics of the action alone. The reason I prefer the latter method is that the prior method leaves more room for failure due to a low roll than the latter, making it a poorer (read: less likely to result in success) strategy, from a player's perspective. I don't see that as a value judgment on the former method. I don't think there's anything at all wrong with preferring the former method, I'm just explaining what my preference is and why. I don't think the results are the same. If you state a goal and approach, the possible results are: 1.) The approach does not have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal. You fail. 2.) The approach does have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, but does not have a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the goal. You succeed. 3.) The approach does have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, and a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the goal, but there are no consequences for failure. You succeed (or you fail, but failure is inconsequential anyway, so you eventually succeed if you keep at it long enough.) 4.) The approach does have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the goal, and a consequence for failure. You must make a check, but you do not beat the DC. You fail. 5.) The approach does have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, a reasonable chance of failing to achieve the goal, and a consequence for failure. You must make a check, and you beat the DC. You succeed. Three of the five possible outcomes result in success. On the other hand, if you make a check first and the outcome of the check is used to determine the narrative, the possible results are: 1.) You make a check but do not beat the DC. You fail. It is then determined what your character did that resulted in this failure. 2.) You make a check and beat the DC. You succeed. It is then determined what your character did that resulted in this success. Only two possible outcomes, and only one of them results in success. I'll concede that calling it "putting the cart before the horse" is a somewhat judgmental way to express that, and for that I apologize. Does this un help explain what I mean when I call it a "poor strategy"? Yeah, this was a big misunderstanding, and I apologize for my part in that. On the subject of the "overstepping bounds" part though, I think you may be reading more into that phrasing than was intended by it, though to your credit, I probably should have unpacked it more. I strongly believe that the player should have sole and ultimate authority over the thoughts and actions of their character. I, personally, despise when a DM narrates my character's actions, and I endeavor never to narrate the actions of the player characters in my games. It is my opinion that the DM's role is to narrate the world, and how it reacts to the player-characters' actions, but never what the player-characters' actions are. I believe that this division of roles is well-supported in the text of the rule books. This is not to say that I hold anything against groups who mutually agree that they are ok with the DM narrating PCs' actions. If this is how you like to play, I see nothing wrong with you playing that way. And the DM of such a group is not really overstepping their bounds, because the social contract of the group, whether implicitly or explicitly, has redefined those boundaries. Game on, don't let my distaste for that style of play keep you from having fun any way you want. I don't remember that specific exchange, but if I ignored it or missed it, sorry. I think it is you who is assuming that I'm contrasting my style with yours here. Again, I don't know what your style is, except for the fact that you do allow players to initiate skill checks, and you do not treat consequences for failure as a prerequisite for a roll. I was contrasting my current style with my style before I adopted the goal and approach technique. Thats why I specifically said, "[I]in my experience[/I], they don't tend to" and, "Before I adopted the goal and approach style, (blah). With goal and approach, (blah)." I made an explicit effort to frame this in terms of my personal experience and how that experiences shaped my preferences today. Yeah, the pot/kettle comments were over the line, I'm sorry for them. In my defense, your response to my comment about your position being a strange hill to die on was "I'm only dying because I'm being stabbed" or something to that effect, which genuinely made it seem to me that you had not understood the idiom. It was not my intent to be condescending in explaining the turn of phrase, but I accept responsibility for that misunderstanding. Yeah, for sure, that's not what I want either. Again, thanks for actually going back through so much of the thread, seems like it has helped clear things up a bit. Clearly, while it has not been my [I]intent[/I] to attack anyone else's playstyle, I have not made my actual intent as clear as I should have. [/sblock] That's cool, man. If that works for you, keep doing your thing. Personally, I used to run the game much more like how you describe here, and it did not work for me [I]at all[/I]. My experience is my own, and it's natural that it will diverge from yours. But it's the only experience I can speak from. That experience has led me to prefer the goal and approach style. It works much better for me, for the reasons that have been gone over exhaustively in this thread, and in my experience, my players enjoy the game much more now than they did when I ran the game more like what you describe here. But that's not meant to denigrate your play style. If it works for you, that's fantastic. I just don't see me describing an action as a player is going to give you any additional insight into my DMing style. It might give [I]me[/I] insight into [I]your[/I] DMing style, but that's not really something I'm especially interested in pursuing. It's cool. It has been an emotionally charged conversation, and I haven't exactly been devoting much effort to trying to diffuse or de-escalate. I appreciate the apology, and I apologize in turn for my own part in getting the conversation to this 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