Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7000841">The difference is that the player knows the underlying mechanics.&nbsp; If the player gets a really good roll, and sees the DM roll the secret die, he knows exactly what his odds are, which will be something like 75% if a d4 was used.&nbsp; (Well, if he didn't know the original TN then he might be guessing at the exact odds, but he knows it will be 75% or greater.) Contrast this with the DM attempting to nudge the conclusion toward the correct one without making it obvious.&nbsp; There are no underlying mechanics, so the player has nothing from which to derive predictions.I think a critical difference between us (and between me and many of the posters in this thread) is that I inherently don't believe a skill roll should determine things that can't be known with certainty.&nbsp; Not just because it's unrealistic but because I think the uncertainty is fun.&nbsp; So, yes, if you believe that a successful Insight roll should function as a Detect Lie spell, then under my system you should feel ripped off. Referencing the bold part, my question is: what determines what information you give them with a 6?&nbsp; Presumably it was below the secret DC, so does that mean you tell them a lie?&nbsp; When you set the high DC for the master rogue they also got false information, so it's clearly not determined by the absolute value of the roll, nor by the gap between the DC and the roll.&nbsp; So is up to the DM's judgment?&nbsp; If so, that's where I have a problem, because if the player doesn't know the &quot;rules&quot; then they won't be able to judge the probability, and from their point of view it's effectively 50/50.Now, the secret DC could work if the delta between the roll and the DC determined a probability, and a second secret die were rolled against that probability.&nbsp; But at that point we have a second secret roll anyway, so the secret DC is unnecessary.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7000841"] The difference is that the player knows the underlying mechanics. If the player gets a really good roll, and sees the DM roll the secret die, he knows exactly what his odds are, which will be something like 75% if a d4 was used. (Well, if he didn't know the original TN then he might be guessing at the [I]exact[/I] odds, but he knows it will be 75% or greater.) Contrast this with the DM attempting to nudge the conclusion toward the correct one without making it obvious. There are no underlying mechanics, so the player has nothing from which to derive predictions. I think a critical difference between us (and between me and many of the posters in this thread) is that I inherently don't believe a skill roll should determine things that can't be known with certainty. Not just because it's unrealistic but because I think the uncertainty is fun. So, yes, if you believe that a successful Insight roll should function as a Detect Lie spell, then under my system you should feel ripped off. Referencing the bold part, my question is: what determines what information you give them with a 6? Presumably it was below the secret DC, so does that mean you tell them a lie? When you set the high DC for the master rogue they also got false information, so it's clearly not determined by the absolute value of the roll, nor by the gap between the DC and the roll. So is up to the DM's judgment? If so, that's where I have a problem, because if the player doesn't know the "rules" then they won't be able to judge the probability, and from their point of view it's effectively 50/50. Now, the secret DC could work if the delta between the roll and the DC determined a probability, and a second secret die were rolled against that probability. But at that point we have a second secret roll anyway, so the secret DC is unnecessary. [/QUOTE]

Verification