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: 7597190" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>O</p><p></p><p>M</p><p></p><p>G</p><p></p><p>Ok, you're getting there, just one detail you seem to be missing from this conversation. This has nothing to do with me labeling things as "good" or "bad" the original impetus for this conversation</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, if you read through those three quotes, you will see that my entire point was that it is unhelpful at best to label approaches as good or bad. In fact, it may lead to accusations that it is possible to "game the DM" if one uses those labels, because it implies the DM is not impartial in their judgements, and can be swayed by a convincing enough argument for "good". </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'd say avoid shorthand, because I see "productive" and "unproductive" as perfectly fine. There is no value judgement in them, just a measure of their effectiveness. That was the only point I was trying to make, yet it took multiple days and multiple responses to get people to this. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I definitely see that as strange. Failure is undesirable, but a check is neutral to me, because there is both the possibility of success and the possibility of failure. There is a small chance of things getting better than they would have with a check in the way I process the events of the game. Because if someone rolls a 25 on a DC 15 check, sometimes they get more than just a success. they might get more benefits. </p><p></p><p>I see what you mean about the use of the human brain to imagine fictional scenarios, but to me that isn't the primary resolution mechanic because there is nothing to resolve when that happens. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Man, there are times when everything you say just seems designed to give off the wrong impression. </p><p></p><p>First of all, since I have stated I do not tell my players the consequences, you are likely assuming I have not used that style, but you need me to admit that so you can discredit my entire line of reasoning with a "well. if you haven't tried it my way you can't have an opinion" </p><p></p><p>But the thing the really gets me is your two standards. Did I do it your way and find it did not lead to "better and more dramatic" roleplaying (all positives there) or have I not done that and found a level of drama (not more drama, just a generic level) that I am "satisfied" with (not that is good, just that I'm willing to settle for that much, just like you settle for a crappy car because that is all you can afford. </p><p></p><p>So, with the acknoweldgement that I might be reading into this things you did not intend to put forth, this entire paragraph is asking me to admit to doing something you know so you can discredit my objections and show that instead of trying it the "better" way I'm merely settling for the "Adequate" way. </p><p></p><p>All not addressing my actual point (some people find it more dramatic not to know what happens next) because the logical evidence that there is some truth to my statement is the very existence of spoilers and holding back information. </p><p></p><p>I have no problem with people giving out the consequences in an academic sense, your game your preferences, but if you make a habit of telling players and then don't tell them for dramatic reasons, you are depriving them and it isn't fun but the DM breaking their own rules. So I do not tell them, because sometimes it is more dramatic and interesting for them not to know. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are missing an important detail here. </p><p></p><p>The chandelier only falls on a failed check. </p><p></p><p>Let us say the chandelier is rock steady and cannot break, and the player fails the check to jump and swing across. What would happen? They would fall. What happens if the chandelier breaks when they try and swing across? They fall. </p><p></p><p>In choosing to utilize the chandelier, and a check being called for, the players should already realize that falling is a likely result of failure, just as they should realize that trying to rush past the guards will lead to them being grabbed by the guards if they fail. </p><p></p><p>The chandelier breaking is simply a dramatic detail added to the result the player already expected. It wasn't that they missed and fell, they landed wrong and it broke. But the result of their failure (falling to the ground) is the exact same result. </p><p></p><p>A "gotcha" is a failure <strong>due </strong> to information the player doesn't know. If choosing the chandelier always led to it breaking and you falling, then it would be a "gotcha". But the chandelier only breaks if you fail, it is the "how did you fail" not the "why"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think implicit consequences might be the sticking point here, because I think players generally understand most implicit dangers. For example:</p><p></p><p></p><p>We seem to agree that telling the players the consequences isn't fully necessary, because the possibility is implicit that they may fall</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would argue this is a completely different problem. </p><p></p><p>What I was getting at is that the players decision is not invalidated if they do not know the exact nature of the consequences. </p><p></p><p>What you are describing is purposefully committing an act which wipes out the player's former actions and invalidates much if not everything in the game before that point. </p><p></p><p>That is a secondary point, and one I agree with. It is why I kind of hate the Feywild time shenanigans or memory loss, because those things wipe out sections of the campaign. But, being teleported far away for a few sessions might not cause that level of disruption. It would be a balancing act.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7597190, member: 6801228"] O M G Ok, you're getting there, just one detail you seem to be missing from this conversation. This has nothing to do with me labeling things as "good" or "bad" the original impetus for this conversation So, if you read through those three quotes, you will see that my entire point was that it is unhelpful at best to label approaches as good or bad. In fact, it may lead to accusations that it is possible to "game the DM" if one uses those labels, because it implies the DM is not impartial in their judgements, and can be swayed by a convincing enough argument for "good". I'd say avoid shorthand, because I see "productive" and "unproductive" as perfectly fine. There is no value judgement in them, just a measure of their effectiveness. That was the only point I was trying to make, yet it took multiple days and multiple responses to get people to this. I definitely see that as strange. Failure is undesirable, but a check is neutral to me, because there is both the possibility of success and the possibility of failure. There is a small chance of things getting better than they would have with a check in the way I process the events of the game. Because if someone rolls a 25 on a DC 15 check, sometimes they get more than just a success. they might get more benefits. I see what you mean about the use of the human brain to imagine fictional scenarios, but to me that isn't the primary resolution mechanic because there is nothing to resolve when that happens. Man, there are times when everything you say just seems designed to give off the wrong impression. First of all, since I have stated I do not tell my players the consequences, you are likely assuming I have not used that style, but you need me to admit that so you can discredit my entire line of reasoning with a "well. if you haven't tried it my way you can't have an opinion" But the thing the really gets me is your two standards. Did I do it your way and find it did not lead to "better and more dramatic" roleplaying (all positives there) or have I not done that and found a level of drama (not more drama, just a generic level) that I am "satisfied" with (not that is good, just that I'm willing to settle for that much, just like you settle for a crappy car because that is all you can afford. So, with the acknoweldgement that I might be reading into this things you did not intend to put forth, this entire paragraph is asking me to admit to doing something you know so you can discredit my objections and show that instead of trying it the "better" way I'm merely settling for the "Adequate" way. All not addressing my actual point (some people find it more dramatic not to know what happens next) because the logical evidence that there is some truth to my statement is the very existence of spoilers and holding back information. I have no problem with people giving out the consequences in an academic sense, your game your preferences, but if you make a habit of telling players and then don't tell them for dramatic reasons, you are depriving them and it isn't fun but the DM breaking their own rules. So I do not tell them, because sometimes it is more dramatic and interesting for them not to know. You are missing an important detail here. The chandelier only falls on a failed check. Let us say the chandelier is rock steady and cannot break, and the player fails the check to jump and swing across. What would happen? They would fall. What happens if the chandelier breaks when they try and swing across? They fall. In choosing to utilize the chandelier, and a check being called for, the players should already realize that falling is a likely result of failure, just as they should realize that trying to rush past the guards will lead to them being grabbed by the guards if they fail. The chandelier breaking is simply a dramatic detail added to the result the player already expected. It wasn't that they missed and fell, they landed wrong and it broke. But the result of their failure (falling to the ground) is the exact same result. A "gotcha" is a failure [B]due [/B] to information the player doesn't know. If choosing the chandelier always led to it breaking and you falling, then it would be a "gotcha". But the chandelier only breaks if you fail, it is the "how did you fail" not the "why" I think implicit consequences might be the sticking point here, because I think players generally understand most implicit dangers. For example: We seem to agree that telling the players the consequences isn't fully necessary, because the possibility is implicit that they may fall I would argue this is a completely different problem. What I was getting at is that the players decision is not invalidated if they do not know the exact nature of the consequences. What you are describing is purposefully committing an act which wipes out the player's former actions and invalidates much if not everything in the game before that point. That is a secondary point, and one I agree with. It is why I kind of hate the Feywild time shenanigans or memory loss, because those things wipe out sections of the campaign. But, being teleported far away for a few sessions might not cause that level of disruption. It would be a balancing act. [/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