Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7000077">Yup, that was one of the responses which I analyzed in depth in my original version.&nbsp; It went something like this:Instead of asking 'can I tell if he's lying' you say, 'I look for signs that he might be lying.'&nbsp; And the DM says, 'Such as?', and you say, 'Is he sweating?&nbsp; Is he making eye contact?&nbsp; Does he have any tics?'And that's all fine, if you can pull it off well.&nbsp; But I have some critiques of it:1) It requires the DM to either have material/answers prepared for every eventuality.&nbsp; AND those answers have to vary each time so that the players don't get used to a pattern.&nbsp; That is, if your goal is mine: to leave the players more informed after a successful role, but still unsure. 2) Maybe you're all much better DMs than I am...a high probability...but I have little faith in my ability to fine-tune my answers such that the probability of players guessing correctly correlates to their character's abilities (and dice rolls, where applicable).&nbsp; Usually I either make it too easy (I give them too much information) or too hard (what I think are good clues are not.)So what I'm proposing is a mechanical solution to inject the right amount of uncertainty.&nbsp; It's a &quot;roll then narrate&quot; solution rather than a &quot;narrate then roll&quot; approach.Also, although I wrote it up as the players asking questions rather than stating what they want to do, I could have written it up either way.&nbsp; I don't believe that distinction is relevant to the larger point.&nbsp; But if I'm mistaken I'm eager to understand why.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7000077"] Yup, that was one of the responses which I analyzed in depth in my original version. It went something like this: Instead of asking 'can I tell if he's lying' you say, 'I look for signs that he might be lying.' And the DM says, 'Such as?', and you say, 'Is he sweating? Is he making eye contact? Does he have any tics?' And that's all fine, if you can pull it off well. But I have some critiques of it: 1) It requires the DM to either have material/answers prepared for every eventuality. AND those answers have to vary each time so that the players don't get used to a pattern. That is, if your goal is mine: to leave the players more informed after a successful role, but still unsure. 2) Maybe you're all much better DMs than I am...a high probability...but I have little faith in my ability to fine-tune my answers such that the probability of players guessing correctly correlates to their character's abilities (and dice rolls, where applicable). Usually I either make it too easy (I give them too much information) or too hard (what I think are good clues are not.) So what I'm proposing is a mechanical solution to inject the right amount of uncertainty. It's a "roll then narrate" solution rather than a "narrate then roll" approach. Also, although I wrote it up as the players asking questions rather than stating what they want to do, I could have written it up either way. I don't believe that distinction is relevant to the larger point. But if I'm mistaken I'm eager to understand why. [/QUOTE]

Verification