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: 7599216" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>You are correct that taking parts of the books as "advice" and part as "rules" would be cherry-picking, though I'd say the books generally intend to include both. </p><p></p><p>However, if we must choose one and only one set, why not have it all be advice? It works surprisingly well, and is consistent, and it changes nothing about our discussion. We aren't discussing mechanics or probabilities, we are discussing styles and table cultures. Whether the material in the books is a "rule" or "advice" has little bearing, and freeing myself from being constrained by "the rules" has made some of my sessions far more enjoyable than if I had played everything exactly by the book. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How far is the journey between indigo and violet? </p><p></p><p>Looking at a gradient scale of colors you can clearly find different colors on each end, but finding the exact point where one becomes the other is impossible. That's how people are, you can lay out point by point your path, but that doesn't mean the nuance doesn't exist and doesn't change the color at the end of the journey. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's fine for you. I'm just trying to say, sometimes having a fair challenge isn't the point. When the players are confronted by 50 of the Churches Elite Paladin's because of some prophecy, it isn't fair. But, between Divination, Commune, and Divine Intervention, it makes sense they could be tracked down and ambushed if the Church is truly afraid of something. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You can not agree, but people still play games other than Dark Souls. </p><p></p><p>(Obviously I know you meant you don't agree that telegraphing doesn't always make sense. I disagree with that, and you offered no reasoning, so I can't address it. The closest I could come is you are probably going to say I am engineering the scenario, so it only does not make sense because I say it doesn't, but I feel like that ignores some details on how building a world and furnishing it with people works)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I see you misunderstood the scenario. I can tell because of the bolded part.</p><p></p><p>This is the gauntlet that leads to the lich's lair, his home. They want to dissuade people from trying to get through it, the entire point is that it is a security measure. You don't post the code to your home security system on the front lawn, why would a Lich who is willing to devour and destroy souls to extend their life risk anything that could lead to their death? </p><p></p><p>As for fun... I don't know. It would certainly be a challenge to get through a lich's gauntlet to finally destroy them once and for all. Be kind of anti-climatic if it was fair and the players felt like they could tell where all the traps and tricks are. It would feel like beating an equal, not destroying a great threat. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Everything you've said applies to mysteries and puzzles as much as it does traps. It wasn't an important plot point that this lady existed, in fact I think the players are still unaware of her all these years later, but it was there if they chose to pursue the various criminal gangs they kept running into and try to track down their boss. But, even action games can have elements of mysteries, if players choose to engage in them, so I'd say it is kind of hard to cut all mysteries and puzzles out of this discussion. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I like how you are now adding "within the bounds of what it is reasonable for the character to know". Of course, by your own arguments what is reasonable to know is only reasonable because you have determined it to be reasonable, and the unreasonable is the same way, so in the end, you are doing the same thing I am doing. </p><p></p><p>I'm also really curious why you've decided to prevent your players from ever making a mistake. I'm still pinning down exactly what is a mistake in your games, but if we go with your current definition of it only occurring when you stumble into a consequence with no warning, then it is impossible to make a mistake in your games. You have decided no one can ever make a mistake. </p><p></p><p>Now imagine all those times you played Dark Souls. How many times have you had a playthrough with zero mistakes? How many times did those zero mistake playthroughs happen on your first game? </p><p></p><p>People can never learn from mistakes that don't happen, and that means they can't improve. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well that's a problem, if I can fool you into thinking you have no biases and aren't using language that seems loaded with meanings you don't want to convey, then I could make you look quite bad. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Since I'm probably one of those half dozen, I think I should point out I've never asked you where you get these "strange" ideas (I've also never said they were strange). In fact, you've told us so many times where you got them from I'm actually shocked I don't have the page numbers memorized. As such, it does not "confound" me. </p><p></p><p>What "confounds" me, is why you seem so strict on something that is so flexible. You seem dismissive of the idea that our games run as well as yours even though we let the players ask for rolls, or have rolls with no meaningful failures. You seem "confounded" that people can have fun while not following the letter of "the rules" and keep insisting that the only way forward is following those rules exactly, even when it is unnecessary. </p><p></p><p>(and since I'm probably going to get some commentary on them being rules now, just trying to match your language.) </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You'll have to include a link at some point, I'm having a hard enough time just keeping up with this thread. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Really?</p><p></p><p>"There is an implicit value judgment here that a clear delineation between player and DM roles is something “for inexperienced players.”<strong> (There is a clear judgement that marking the line between player and DM is something for new players) </strong>You are mistaking your preference for more give-and-take of narrative control between the players and the DM for a more refined taste that players and DMs will naturally grow into with experience. <strong>(You are mixing up your preference for a "give and take" style for a more refined style that players will grow into with experience)</strong>"</p><p></p><p>How is "your preference" vs "a more refined style" not saying that their preference is less refined? Add in that this more refined style naturally comes from experience and there is an implication that lacking that more refined style is either choosing to play as if you were inexperienced, or comes about from being inexperienced. </p><p></p><p>Seems pretty dang close to what [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] was saying about [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] coming across as feeling superior in their style. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah, I see that now. Be easier to spot with some clearer subject-verb usage, it gets a little muddled and I think it could be read either way. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Since we are trying to be helpful to each other's use of language, bad mouthing a poster again after being told they weren't talking about you (phrases like "self-imposed misery" or "continually railing" and word choices like "wallow") do not cast you in a very positive light either. </p><p></p><p>A better play would have been to just admit your fault, instead of trying to make it sound like they were attacking you by attacking someone who agrees with you. </p><p></p><p>Also, if you are blocked or are blocking someone, isn't it good policy to just not talk about them, since they can't see what you are saying? 5eyku has had me blocked for a long time and while I do occasionally read what they say in quotes, because I find they raise good points, I try not to point towards them in anyway, since they could never directly respond to me and that would be unfair.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7599216, member: 6801228"] You are correct that taking parts of the books as "advice" and part as "rules" would be cherry-picking, though I'd say the books generally intend to include both. However, if we must choose one and only one set, why not have it all be advice? It works surprisingly well, and is consistent, and it changes nothing about our discussion. We aren't discussing mechanics or probabilities, we are discussing styles and table cultures. Whether the material in the books is a "rule" or "advice" has little bearing, and freeing myself from being constrained by "the rules" has made some of my sessions far more enjoyable than if I had played everything exactly by the book. How far is the journey between indigo and violet? Looking at a gradient scale of colors you can clearly find different colors on each end, but finding the exact point where one becomes the other is impossible. That's how people are, you can lay out point by point your path, but that doesn't mean the nuance doesn't exist and doesn't change the color at the end of the journey. That's fine for you. I'm just trying to say, sometimes having a fair challenge isn't the point. When the players are confronted by 50 of the Churches Elite Paladin's because of some prophecy, it isn't fair. But, between Divination, Commune, and Divine Intervention, it makes sense they could be tracked down and ambushed if the Church is truly afraid of something. You can not agree, but people still play games other than Dark Souls. (Obviously I know you meant you don't agree that telegraphing doesn't always make sense. I disagree with that, and you offered no reasoning, so I can't address it. The closest I could come is you are probably going to say I am engineering the scenario, so it only does not make sense because I say it doesn't, but I feel like that ignores some details on how building a world and furnishing it with people works) I see you misunderstood the scenario. I can tell because of the bolded part. This is the gauntlet that leads to the lich's lair, his home. They want to dissuade people from trying to get through it, the entire point is that it is a security measure. You don't post the code to your home security system on the front lawn, why would a Lich who is willing to devour and destroy souls to extend their life risk anything that could lead to their death? As for fun... I don't know. It would certainly be a challenge to get through a lich's gauntlet to finally destroy them once and for all. Be kind of anti-climatic if it was fair and the players felt like they could tell where all the traps and tricks are. It would feel like beating an equal, not destroying a great threat. Everything you've said applies to mysteries and puzzles as much as it does traps. It wasn't an important plot point that this lady existed, in fact I think the players are still unaware of her all these years later, but it was there if they chose to pursue the various criminal gangs they kept running into and try to track down their boss. But, even action games can have elements of mysteries, if players choose to engage in them, so I'd say it is kind of hard to cut all mysteries and puzzles out of this discussion. I like how you are now adding "within the bounds of what it is reasonable for the character to know". Of course, by your own arguments what is reasonable to know is only reasonable because you have determined it to be reasonable, and the unreasonable is the same way, so in the end, you are doing the same thing I am doing. I'm also really curious why you've decided to prevent your players from ever making a mistake. I'm still pinning down exactly what is a mistake in your games, but if we go with your current definition of it only occurring when you stumble into a consequence with no warning, then it is impossible to make a mistake in your games. You have decided no one can ever make a mistake. Now imagine all those times you played Dark Souls. How many times have you had a playthrough with zero mistakes? How many times did those zero mistake playthroughs happen on your first game? People can never learn from mistakes that don't happen, and that means they can't improve. Well that's a problem, if I can fool you into thinking you have no biases and aren't using language that seems loaded with meanings you don't want to convey, then I could make you look quite bad. Since I'm probably one of those half dozen, I think I should point out I've never asked you where you get these "strange" ideas (I've also never said they were strange). In fact, you've told us so many times where you got them from I'm actually shocked I don't have the page numbers memorized. As such, it does not "confound" me. What "confounds" me, is why you seem so strict on something that is so flexible. You seem dismissive of the idea that our games run as well as yours even though we let the players ask for rolls, or have rolls with no meaningful failures. You seem "confounded" that people can have fun while not following the letter of "the rules" and keep insisting that the only way forward is following those rules exactly, even when it is unnecessary. (and since I'm probably going to get some commentary on them being rules now, just trying to match your language.) You'll have to include a link at some point, I'm having a hard enough time just keeping up with this thread. Really? "There is an implicit value judgment here that a clear delineation between player and DM roles is something “for inexperienced players.”[B] (There is a clear judgement that marking the line between player and DM is something for new players) [/B]You are mistaking your preference for more give-and-take of narrative control between the players and the DM for a more refined taste that players and DMs will naturally grow into with experience. [B](You are mixing up your preference for a "give and take" style for a more refined style that players will grow into with experience)[/B]" How is "your preference" vs "a more refined style" not saying that their preference is less refined? Add in that this more refined style naturally comes from experience and there is an implication that lacking that more refined style is either choosing to play as if you were inexperienced, or comes about from being inexperienced. Seems pretty dang close to what [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] was saying about [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] coming across as feeling superior in their style. Ah, I see that now. Be easier to spot with some clearer subject-verb usage, it gets a little muddled and I think it could be read either way. Since we are trying to be helpful to each other's use of language, bad mouthing a poster again after being told they weren't talking about you (phrases like "self-imposed misery" or "continually railing" and word choices like "wallow") do not cast you in a very positive light either. A better play would have been to just admit your fault, instead of trying to make it sound like they were attacking you by attacking someone who agrees with you. Also, if you are blocked or are blocking someone, isn't it good policy to just not talk about them, since they can't see what you are saying? 5eyku has had me blocked for a long time and while I do occasionally read what they say in quotes, because I find they raise good points, I try not to point towards them in anyway, since they could never directly respond to me and that would be unfair. [/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