Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="M_Natas" data-source="post: 9116225" data-attributes="member: 7025918">So, there is one other true issue (TM) that I haven't seen discussed here.Active Insight and perception roles (Players are allowed to do active insight and perception checks) and the whole check declaration by players.Usually players have to declare an action, the DM decides if a roll is necessary and what attributes and skill proficiencies are applicable if a roll is necessary. The first problem is, that a lot of tables play with players declaring &quot;I roll stealth&quot; &quot;I roll sleight of hand&quot; &quot;I roll nature ...&quot; - which already is bad and shouldn't been done.But that the problem gets worse when Insight, Perception and Knowledge checks (do I know this? Can I roll arcana for that?) come into play.What does an active insight or perception check actually look like? In the game World it would be: I'm looking very hard.Like, if a player thinks a NPC is lying, when he asks for an Insight check, that is not an action. I would assume that he is observant during the whole conversation.So Insight and Perception checks shouldn't exist. Their should be only passive Insight and Perception and NPCs roll against the passive Insight Score to see if they ate lying or not.Because insight is used like a Liedetector. &quot;Do I believe him?&quot; is like used as a shorthand for I want to roll Insight. But as a DM I can't tell the player if his character believes something or not. That is totally up to the player.The DM should only tell the player what the character sees, hears, feels (or any of the other senses), but not give the Character drawn conclusions.Also if the DM rolls, it reduces Metaknowledge. A low perception or insight roll by a player tells him &quot;Okay, maybe I missed something&quot; while a high perception or insight roll tells the player &quot;maybe I didn't miss anything&quot;. So if the DM rolls such checks for the NPCs against the Characters passive Insight and Perception scores, the game gets better and unwanted metaknowledge is reduced.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="M_Natas, post: 9116225, member: 7025918"] So, there is one other true issue (TM) that I haven't seen discussed here. Active Insight and perception roles (Players are allowed to do active insight and perception checks) and the whole check declaration by players. Usually players have to declare an action, the DM decides if a roll is necessary and what attributes and skill proficiencies are applicable if a roll is necessary. The first problem is, that a lot of tables play with players declaring "I roll stealth" "I roll sleight of hand" "I roll nature ..." - which already is bad and shouldn't been done. But that the problem gets worse when Insight, Perception and Knowledge checks (do I know this? Can I roll arcana for that?) come into play. What does an active insight or perception check actually look like? In the game World it would be: I'm looking very hard. Like, if a player thinks a NPC is lying, when he asks for an Insight check, that is not an action. I would assume that he is observant during the whole conversation. So Insight and Perception checks shouldn't exist. Their should be only passive Insight and Perception and NPCs roll against the passive Insight Score to see if they ate lying or not. Because insight is used like a Liedetector. "Do I believe him?" is like used as a shorthand for I want to roll Insight. But as a DM I can't tell the player if his character believes something or not. That is totally up to the player. The DM should only tell the player what the character sees, hears, feels (or any of the other senses), but not give the Character drawn conclusions. Also if the DM rolls, it reduces Metaknowledge. A low perception or insight roll by a player tells him "Okay, maybe I missed something" while a high perception or insight roll tells the player "maybe I didn't miss anything". So if the DM rolls such checks for the NPCs against the Characters passive Insight and Perception scores, the game gets better and unwanted metaknowledge is reduced. [/QUOTE]

Verification