Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7005882">Do you feel the same way about combat?&nbsp; That the players should declare, &quot;I attack the ogre with my sword&quot; and not know their odds, even if they don't know the exact AC of the ogre?&nbsp; Do you let them roll their own dice?&nbsp; (For the record, I could understand and appreciate a game in which the answer was Yes.&nbsp; I just don't think that game is D&amp;D 5e.)So maybe we're only going to talk past each other because I think the player should know their (approximate) probability of success, even for things like detecting lies.&nbsp; They should at least have a belief about their probability, even if in some circumstances it changes (e.g., the guard is actually a grandmaster rogue and an expert in deception.) This is where we start to disagree.&nbsp; I assert that at this point is becomes a matter of the DMs improv acting ability versus the player's &quot;Insight&quot; score, not the NPC versus the PC.&nbsp; And unless the DM is really bad at it, or the player knows his DM really well, the player has no information to go on; it's pure hunch.&nbsp; So he may as well flip a coin. (Ironically, the better the DM's acting ability, the less information the player has.)Here we are saying essentially the same thing: by &quot;assume 50/50&quot; I meant &quot;I got zero useful information from that, so it may as well be random.&quot;Look, I can't disagree with most of what you are saying, but then what is the purpose of the Insight skill?&nbsp; Why have stats and dice at all?&nbsp; Ok, I could see how the DM might glance at the character stats and then decide what to reveal, but why have dice?I know you all mean well, but my original question was about mechanics and probability.&nbsp; Some of the advice here sounds a lot like &quot;You don't need mechanics, you just need to DM better.&quot;&nbsp; But I do not think it is good DMing, or good playing, to resolve deception/persuasion (and other) events through the improv abilities of the participants.&nbsp; I want the character, animated by the informed decisions of the player, to determine the outcomes.&nbsp; The DM should remain a neutral arbiter.There's still lots of room for narration and roleplaying.&nbsp; But it's done to interpret the fall of the dice, not to determine modifiers to the dice, or to replace them.Perhaps we just play the game differently.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7005882"] Do you feel the same way about combat? That the players should declare, "I attack the ogre with my sword" and not know their odds, even if they don't know the exact AC of the ogre? Do you let them roll their own dice? (For the record, I could understand and appreciate a game in which the answer was Yes. I just don't think that game is D&D 5e.) So maybe we're only going to talk past each other because I think the player should know their (approximate) probability of success, even for things like detecting lies. They should at least have a [I]belief[/I] about their probability, even if in some circumstances it changes (e.g., the guard is actually a grandmaster rogue and an expert in deception.) This is where we start to disagree. I assert that at this point is becomes a matter of the DMs improv acting ability versus the [I]player's[/I] "Insight" score, not the NPC versus the PC. And unless the DM is really bad at it, or the player knows his DM really well, the player has no information to go on; it's pure hunch. So he may as well flip a coin. (Ironically, the better the DM's acting ability, the less information the player has.) Here we are saying essentially the same thing: by "assume 50/50" I meant "I got zero useful information from that, so it may as well be random." Look, I can't disagree with most of what you are saying, but then what is the purpose of the Insight skill? Why have stats and dice at all? Ok, I could see how the DM might glance at the character stats and then decide what to reveal, but why have dice? I know you all mean well, but my original question was about mechanics and probability. Some of the advice here sounds a lot like "You don't need mechanics, you just need to DM better." But I do not think it is good DMing, or good playing, to resolve deception/persuasion (and other) events through the improv abilities of the participants. I want the [I]character[/I], [B]animated by the informed decisions of the player[/B], to determine the outcomes. The DM should remain a neutral arbiter. There's still [I]lots[/I] of room for narration and roleplaying. But it's done to interpret the fall of the dice, not to determine modifiers to the dice, or to replace them. Perhaps we just play the game differently. [/QUOTE]

Verification