Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7602362" data-attributes="member: 6801845">Hold on.&nbsp; Going back, way, way back to the OP here.&nbsp; If someone is telling the truth what's the insight check to know that far back.What I said was that I allow the players to roll and that the result is probably going to be &quot;they seem to be telling the truth&quot;.&nbsp; Because I try to limit the amount of meta-game knowledge my players have.Then we getIf you don't allow an insight check because you know the result ... you're giving away information the characters don't have.&nbsp; The players now know the NPC is telling the truth.&nbsp; Yet somehow asking for a perception check that may result in the player not getting any new information is something I should be ashamed of?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />As far as...Why would I be sheepish?&nbsp; I have nothing to be ashamed of other than your opinion that I'm doing it wrong.&nbsp; In my campaign things happen outside of the PC's control that they may or may not notice.&nbsp; I handle it like most other uncertainty in the game that has a consequence and cannot be directly resolved by PC action, with a die roll.I don't know how else you could resolve that.&nbsp; If it's critical to the story, they'll find out the minimum they need to know to continue the story with a setback.&nbsp; As far as &quot;compartmentalizing&quot;, yes I ask people to not act on knowledge that their PC does not have.&nbsp; I've had people literally break out the MM and start quoting text from it. I resolved that by asking them not to do it in the future.&nbsp; I also assume that if a player is a chemist that knows how to make gunpowder that I don't automatically have to deal with gunpowder in my campaign.I don't see why that would ever be a problem or what's wrong with it.&nbsp; In other cases instead of overhearing a conversation that would make their investigation a little easier they'll hear about something inconsequential like rumors of a local farmer having a really big cow for sale.I like to think I take the middle road as described in the DMG but your game seems to be much, much more in the &quot;ignore the dice&quot; realm. If it works for you, great.&nbsp; I accept that different people play for different reasons.&nbsp; Personally I enjoy getting into the mindset of my PC, even when that's different than my own.&lt;HUMOR?&gt;THIS JUST IN ... DIFFERENT PEOPLE PLAY FOR DIFFERENT REASONS ... JUST BECAUSE A STYLE DOESN'T WORK FOR YOU DOESN'T MEAN OTHER STYLES AREN'T VALID ... NEWS AT 11 ...&lt;/HUMOR?&gt;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 7602362, member: 6801845"] Hold on. Going back, way, way back to the OP here. If someone is telling the truth what's the insight check to know that far back. What I said was that I allow the players to roll and that the result is probably going to be "they seem to be telling the truth". Because I try to limit the amount of meta-game knowledge my players have. Then we get If you don't allow an insight check because you know the result ... you're giving away information the characters don't have. The players now know the NPC is telling the truth. Yet somehow asking for a perception check that may result in the player not getting any new information is something I should be ashamed of? :confused: As far as... Why would I be sheepish? I have nothing to be ashamed of other than your opinion that I'm doing it wrong. In my campaign things happen outside of the PC's control that they may or may not notice. I handle it like most other uncertainty in the game that has a consequence and cannot be directly resolved by PC action, with a die roll. I don't know how else you could resolve that. If it's critical to the story, they'll find out the minimum they need to know to continue the story with a setback. As far as "compartmentalizing", yes I ask people to not act on knowledge that their PC does not have. I've had people literally break out the MM and start quoting text from it. I resolved that by asking them not to do it in the future. I also assume that if a player is a chemist that knows how to make gunpowder that I don't automatically have to deal with gunpowder in my campaign. I don't see why that would ever be a problem or what's wrong with it. In other cases instead of overhearing a conversation that would make their investigation a little easier they'll hear about something inconsequential like rumors of a local farmer having a really big cow for sale. I like to think I take the middle road as described in the DMG but your game seems to be much, much more in the "ignore the dice" realm. If it works for you, great. I accept that different people play for different reasons. Personally I enjoy getting into the mindset of my PC, even when that's different than my own. <HUMOR?> THIS JUST IN ... DIFFERENT PEOPLE PLAY FOR DIFFERENT REASONS ... JUST BECAUSE A STYLE DOESN'T WORK FOR YOU DOESN'T MEAN OTHER STYLES AREN'T VALID ... NEWS AT 11 ... </HUMOR?> [/QUOTE]

Verification