Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?

Satyrn · Apr 13, 2019

Immortal Sun said:
Fair, while I also want to have fun as DM, if the people at the table are having fun doing detailed searching well...*shrug* okay. And yeah, if they're gonna stab it anyway, might as well skip to the stabbing.

Then they can just Speak with Dead and get the truth!

That's speaking like a true ~~murderhobo~~, er I mean dungeon delver. I heartily approve.

Satyrn · Apr 13, 2019

Reynard said:
None of that contradicts my point: players do not necessarily benefit from being overly granular in declaring actions at my table. "I search the study" is as good as and possibly superior to a series of more specific declarations. Similarly, on topic, "I try to determine if he's lying" is good enough.

You and [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] are far better at gleaning your e players' intentions than I am.

I see ""I try to determine if he's lying" and I know you, the Enworld poster, are suggesting the method described in PH in the Insight description because this thread is all about that.

But at the table, if Insight hasn't even been mentioned during the session, I wouldn't know that you're trying to read his body language or do something else. I might guess you're trying to determine he lying by questioning his aide sitting beside him, or checking the reference library if recorded facts could show the NPC was lying.

I'm not likely gonna know what you mean if you don't tell me what you mean.

Bawylie · Apr 13, 2019

Immortal Sun said:
He dismissed my comment, regardless of how anecdotal it was, as not happening because it hadn't happened to him.

Frankly, that's not a discussion nor a person I want to have one with.

If he meant something else, the onus is on him to clarify.

I don’t think the onus is on me to defend your hallucination of my position. But I am truly sorry for the disrespect/dismissiveness which was completely unintentional.

Swarmkeeper · Apr 13, 2019

Reynard said:
None of that contradicts my point: players do not necessarily benefit from being overly granular in declaring actions at my table. "I search the study" is as good as and possibly superior to a series of more specific declarations. Similarly, on topic, "I try to determine if he's lying" is good enough.

Can’t argue with that - if it works at your table, go with it.

At our table, that would get old fast for the players. They like to describe what their characters are doing and why. For them, that isn’t just possibly superior, it just is. And it doesn’t end up being a series of declarations either - in fact it gives multiple PCs a chance to contribute to the search in their own way and allow for it to take less in-game time. For us, that keeps each scene from being a simple rehash of the last time they searched a room or tried to see if an NPC was lying. It’s not overly granular, it’s just how we role/roll at our table.

iserith · Apr 13, 2019

Reynard said:
GM: You slip into the study and close the door quietly behind you. Based on your observations of the house guards, you have about three minutes before they come to inspect the room.

Player: Okay, I go to the desk and and check all the drawers for false bottoms and then look behind all the wall pictures for hidden safes.

GM: Hold on. The desk is a big heavy oak thing but it doesn't have any drawers.

[cue extended back and forth with the GM trying to get the player's vision of the study to align perfectly with their vision of it]

Compare that to the situation in which the player simply says, "I search the study for clues." The GM can then ask for a a Perception roll (or not, depending on the specifics) and narrate the results of that roll, including whatever descriptive elements are important. Now the GM and the player still have their own mental images of the study and they are still different from one another's but those differences don't matter and don't impede play.

To me, this just sounds like the DM fell down on his or her role and responsibility of describing the environment, effectively kicking it to the player to make assumptions about it. This also happens when the player doesn't fulfill his or her own role and responsibility to describe what he or she wants to do with reasonable specificity - the DM often makes assumptions and fills in the blanks, describing what the character is doing for the player. (I bolded the part of your example that appears suspiciously like this. I see if often in other people's games, too.)

If both the DM and the players are performing their role and responsibilities, these sorts of things don't happen.

Reynard · Apr 13, 2019

iserith said:
To me, this just sounds like the DM fell down on his or her role and responsibility of describing the environment, effectively kicking it to the player to make assumptions about it. This also happens when the player doesn't fulfill his or her own role and responsibility to describe what he or she wants to do with reasonable specificity - the DM often makes assumptions and fills in the blanks, describing what the character is doing for the player. (I bolded the part of your example that appears suspiciously like this. I see if often in other people's games, too.)

If both the DM and the players are performing their role and responsibilities, these sorts of things don't happen.

First of all, context matters. Ostensibly there are things happening around the example I presented and that bolded part could literally follow a player saying , "I try and slip into the room and close the door quietly behind me." I do not understand why people insist on assuming the worst possible interpretation of the idea. It's maddening.

Aside from that, I don't see the GM and player roles as lists of responsibilities. Everyone at the table is working toward everyone having fun. If spending 25 minutes of your 2 hour session on the search of the study is fun for your group, have at it. But in my experience time is at a premium and moving the game forward is preferable to detailed simulations of the search procedure.

Satyrn · Apr 13, 2019

Reynard said:
First of all, context matters. Ostensibly there are things happening around the example I presented and that bolded part could literally follow a player saying , "I try and slip into the room and close the door quietly behind me." I do not understand why people insist on assuming the worst possible interpretation of the idea. It's maddening.

Aside from that, I don't see the GM and player roles as lists of responsibilities. Everyone at the table is working toward everyone having fun. If spending 25 minutes of your 2 hour session on the search of the study is fun for your group, have at it. But in my experience time is at a premium and moving the game forward is preferable to detailed simulations of the search procedure.

While those aren't very flattering interpretations, at least they aren't the worst possible.

iserith · Apr 13, 2019

Immortal Sun said:
You know, I generally prefer Ford, but that was a pretty good Dodge on taking responsibility for the argument you've been laying out here about expecting a certain level of specificity.

It's these sorts of stupid word games I've lost interest in. YOU said several time YOU expect a reasonable level of specificity. If YOU can't state what YOUR expectations are, then there's not much to discuss here is it?

I'll continue the car metaphor and suggest you consult your owner's manual.

But in the abstract, the DM describes the environment in a way that presents the basic scope of options sufficient for the player to describe what he or she wants to do with minimal assumptions. The player describes what he or she wants to do with enough specificity (goal and approach) so the DM can decide whether the proposed action is a success, a failure, or whether there's an uncertain outcome and, after adjudication, narrate the result of the adventurers' actions without describing or establishing what the character does, thinks, or says.

iserith · Apr 13, 2019

Reynard said:
First of all, context matters. Ostensibly there are things happening around the example I presented and that bolded part could literally follow a player saying , "I try and slip into the room and close the door quietly behind me." I do not understand why people insist on assuming the worst possible interpretation of the idea. It's maddening.

The DM is still describing what the character does in your example, which is the player's role and responsibility, not the DM's.

Reynard said:
Aside from that, I don't see the GM and player roles as lists of responsibilities. Everyone at the table is working toward everyone having fun. If spending 25 minutes of your 2 hour session on the search of the study is fun for your group, have at it. But in my experience time is at a premium and moving the game forward is preferable to detailed simulations of the search procedure.

I will put my game's pace and the amount of content we cover every session up against any other game any day of the week. We are fast by any comparison. So I have no concern about that at all, especially since the DM and players each performing their roles and responsibilities to the utmost takes care of that.

That aside, the goal of the game as defined by the rules are that everyone has a good time and an exciting, memorable story is created as a result of play. That is how you "win" D&D. The DM and the players share that goal as a group, but each person has responsibilities to perform in their individual roles. It's laid out in the section called "How to Play," which I guess everyone just skips over or reads but assumes it is just advice when in fact it is a fundamental aspect of the game.

Which is not to say you can't play however you want. But if you want to see where I'm coming from and why I play like I do, you need look no further than the rules of the game.