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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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: 7596274" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Yes?</p><p></p><p>I take it you agree with my statement then, since you quoted the rulebook yet again about something that is completely parallel to my point? Or, do you think that if a DM is going to label approaches as "good" or "bad" they are still impartially judging whether a task is uncertain and if there is a meaningful consequence for failure, as per the PHB? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe it just stood out to me in your phrasing... but don't you find it weird to actively avoid the resolution mechanic of a game? </p><p></p><p>Looking at it, "they have the possibility of failure", that makes it sound like by getting a check called for... the player has somehow failed. I'm not trying to say that is how you resolve things, I understand you only call for checks when those three criteria are met, no need to repeat them, but take a step back and think about this in a pure sit down to play any game in the world context. </p><p></p><p>You are warning players when they are about to use the main resolution mechanic of the game. By that resolution mechanic being called on, you are allowing the possibility of failure to enter the game. It is purely negative. There is no upside. </p><p></p><p>That's weird right? It is a d20 system, but rolling the dice is the worst outcome for the player, they should be warned, prepared, have the option to back out and find another way. They should not roll dice. </p><p></p><p>It just never struck me before that was the type of mindset you had. It just never registered, because I've never considered using the primary resolution mechanic of the game to be a bad </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But in this exact conversation thread, we aren't talking about goal and approach. We are talking about whether or not giving players information on the consequences of their actions leads to better and more dramatic roleplaying. That has nothing to do with how the players approach the problem and all about how much we tell them. </p><p></p><p>So why does my experience with how the players present their actions to me matter? Do you think that because my players do not always present their actions in goal and approach that I've never had them attempt to solve a dangerous situation? That they have never entered into a dramatic moment where their success or failure could change the course of the game? Do I have direct experience with these sorts of situations or am I simply theorizing what players may find engaging and exciting was your exact question. It has nothing to do with style. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I must assume you have entirely forgotten the where this chandelier example came from, otherwise you I don't see how this could possibly be a "Gotcha". To remind you of the scenario. </p><p></p><p>You are standing in on the second floor of a mansion, guards are charging up the stairs and you need to escape. You see a window and a chandelier, across from which is a ledge leading somewhere else, in addition to the stairs leading down. What do you do? </p><p></p><p>It is possible that by deciding to jump on the chandelier and use it as a means of travel, the player might have to roll a check. It seems likely, chandelier jumping is dangerous stuff. IF they fail this check, then perhaps instead of "you miss" it could be that they land heavily on one side, and with a snap the chandelier breaks from the ceiling and crashes to the ground. </p><p></p><p>There is no gotcha here, the player can't spend 10 minutes checking the stability of the chandelier. It is a viable option, but a failed check might lead to it breaking, and the player doesn't know it could break. The challenge has nothing to do with the chandelier, excepting that it might be a solution, the challenge is "escape from the guards" and there is no gotcha in allowing the player to make a choice. They could try tumbling past the guards and sliding down the stair's railing. They could jump out the window. They could teleport somewhere. They could scream and throw a table and scare the guards off. But each of those actions might also fail in some way, and if you jump on a chandelier and land wrong, you might break it. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If you decide to mess with a clearly dangerous magical circle, to attempt to deactivate it in a safe manner, and it fails, how are you not dealing with the consequences of your decisions? </p><p></p><p>Honestly, if you make the decision to mess with dangerous things, no matter what bad thing happens, is that not a consequence of your decision? Doing more research into the energies of the circle could tell you something, it could not, depends on the exact circumstances, it might just tell you "chaotic magical energies are held in place by this circle". Can you know the results of "chaotic magical energies"? Does not knowing invalidate your decision to try and disperse it? </p><p></p><p></p><p>Sometimes not knowing is equally fun to knowing. Sometimes it is more fun. Sometimes it is less fun. Regardless, if you declare an action, your character has taken an action. If there is a negative result from that action, you are dealing with the consequences of that action. Yes, if I say someone is yelling for help, you declare you run to see what is going on, and I tell you you take fire damage from the burning building they just ran into, that is bad DMing. But your decision to try and disable a magic circle humming with energy is not invalidated if when you fail I decide to teleport the entire party to the Far North instead of having it all unleash in a massive fireball like you expected. It is clear that in failing to properly disperse a large amount of magical energy <em>something </em> would happen, but not knowing exactly what doesn't seem like it should ruin your fun. Your character can't see the future after all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7596274, member: 6801228"] Yes? I take it you agree with my statement then, since you quoted the rulebook yet again about something that is completely parallel to my point? Or, do you think that if a DM is going to label approaches as "good" or "bad" they are still impartially judging whether a task is uncertain and if there is a meaningful consequence for failure, as per the PHB? Maybe it just stood out to me in your phrasing... but don't you find it weird to actively avoid the resolution mechanic of a game? Looking at it, "they have the possibility of failure", that makes it sound like by getting a check called for... the player has somehow failed. I'm not trying to say that is how you resolve things, I understand you only call for checks when those three criteria are met, no need to repeat them, but take a step back and think about this in a pure sit down to play any game in the world context. You are warning players when they are about to use the main resolution mechanic of the game. By that resolution mechanic being called on, you are allowing the possibility of failure to enter the game. It is purely negative. There is no upside. That's weird right? It is a d20 system, but rolling the dice is the worst outcome for the player, they should be warned, prepared, have the option to back out and find another way. They should not roll dice. It just never struck me before that was the type of mindset you had. It just never registered, because I've never considered using the primary resolution mechanic of the game to be a bad But in this exact conversation thread, we aren't talking about goal and approach. We are talking about whether or not giving players information on the consequences of their actions leads to better and more dramatic roleplaying. That has nothing to do with how the players approach the problem and all about how much we tell them. So why does my experience with how the players present their actions to me matter? Do you think that because my players do not always present their actions in goal and approach that I've never had them attempt to solve a dangerous situation? That they have never entered into a dramatic moment where their success or failure could change the course of the game? Do I have direct experience with these sorts of situations or am I simply theorizing what players may find engaging and exciting was your exact question. It has nothing to do with style. I must assume you have entirely forgotten the where this chandelier example came from, otherwise you I don't see how this could possibly be a "Gotcha". To remind you of the scenario. You are standing in on the second floor of a mansion, guards are charging up the stairs and you need to escape. You see a window and a chandelier, across from which is a ledge leading somewhere else, in addition to the stairs leading down. What do you do? It is possible that by deciding to jump on the chandelier and use it as a means of travel, the player might have to roll a check. It seems likely, chandelier jumping is dangerous stuff. IF they fail this check, then perhaps instead of "you miss" it could be that they land heavily on one side, and with a snap the chandelier breaks from the ceiling and crashes to the ground. There is no gotcha here, the player can't spend 10 minutes checking the stability of the chandelier. It is a viable option, but a failed check might lead to it breaking, and the player doesn't know it could break. The challenge has nothing to do with the chandelier, excepting that it might be a solution, the challenge is "escape from the guards" and there is no gotcha in allowing the player to make a choice. They could try tumbling past the guards and sliding down the stair's railing. They could jump out the window. They could teleport somewhere. They could scream and throw a table and scare the guards off. But each of those actions might also fail in some way, and if you jump on a chandelier and land wrong, you might break it. If you decide to mess with a clearly dangerous magical circle, to attempt to deactivate it in a safe manner, and it fails, how are you not dealing with the consequences of your decisions? Honestly, if you make the decision to mess with dangerous things, no matter what bad thing happens, is that not a consequence of your decision? Doing more research into the energies of the circle could tell you something, it could not, depends on the exact circumstances, it might just tell you "chaotic magical energies are held in place by this circle". Can you know the results of "chaotic magical energies"? Does not knowing invalidate your decision to try and disperse it? Sometimes not knowing is equally fun to knowing. Sometimes it is more fun. Sometimes it is less fun. Regardless, if you declare an action, your character has taken an action. If there is a negative result from that action, you are dealing with the consequences of that action. Yes, if I say someone is yelling for help, you declare you run to see what is going on, and I tell you you take fire damage from the burning building they just ran into, that is bad DMing. But your decision to try and disable a magic circle humming with energy is not invalidated if when you fail I decide to teleport the entire party to the Far North instead of having it all unleash in a massive fireball like you expected. It is clear that in failing to properly disperse a large amount of magical energy [I]something [/I] would happen, but not knowing exactly what doesn't seem like it should ruin your fun. Your character can't see the future after all. [/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