Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 7004012" data-attributes="member: 5890">That sentence is completely redundant. If a bomb that you made fails, it's not always because you made a mistake. The same applies to any engineering product. If you've made something bespoke, then the odds of it working perfectly the first time are never 100%.The dice roll says simply that random chance says you failed/succeeded. Always putting that random chance down to "this time the PC <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />ed up" makes most games into clown shows, because 5e has such a high chance for a competent individual to fail. I much prefer "this time something external happened that made the scenario more difficult". If you screw up making a bomb, then one of the components was bad and you didn't catch it. It got jarred in transit. The day was especially humid etc etc.Nothing is certain. Have you heard of an engineering quality called tolerance? Do you understand the procedures of QA? You make things and then you test them until you're statistically certain that your product is good.In D&D terms, what you are describing with respect to is the guard lying is adequately modeled by the opposed check and the fact that you do not know how many ranks he has in deceive. Just like engineering you mean?Wrong on multiple fronts, like I pointed out.Like I said: if the player doesn't know the DC, then lowering their final roll will make them more worried that they've failed. Also it IS baked into RPGs, it's called an opposed roll. You've not come up with a clever new mechanic here. Any game that has the DM roll part of a check can leave the player without certainty. That's all that you are doing.Other methods have the advantage of being well designed.The guy who is terrible at a roll has a lower chance of screwing up completely than the guy who is great at it. That makes this a bad mechanic, especially when alternative methods exist to do the same thing which don't have the same drawback.Sure, but yours isn't some special kind except for it's reversal of expectation.Well mostly because you seem set on the idea that any attempt to divine truth is "just a hunch". You seem to have a great lack of understanding of the topic while at the same time asserting that the rules that exist are unrealistic. A quick perusal of the study I cited suggests that of all the skills in the game, insight may be one of the few that actually is a good model of reality.You're just assuming that your players aren't listening to you and thinking about what you say, aren't you? They all sound like hedges.Does this not show to you how your system is stupid?Again - scientific study says you are wrong. If you were correct, the study and follow up studies would not have been able to find people who could consistently detect lies, and would not have found that the general population has a 54% chance to detect lies.Why would I be hostile towards you personally? I have no idea who you are.My hostility is against an idea which1) Is being created for no reason: mechanics for what you want to achieve already exist.2) Has been admitted by you to be less than ideal, even when applied in ideal situations. Statistically IS less than ideal.3) Is applied only to skills that the DM thinks of as unscientific. Which ones? Who knows!4) Is specifically intended for a skill which actually lines up extremely well with the existing rules.5) Appears to be intended for scenarios where proficiencies should not apply.</blockquote>

Verification