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

iserith · Apr 11, 2019

Hussar said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and say, "a lot of people you happen to play with", because, for me and mine, over the years that I've played, no one would ever have a problem with "you think he's telling the truth" or "you think he's lying."

I think it's better to say what is observed rather than what the character thinks or believes. "The NPC shows signs of mendacity through his or her body language, mannerisms, or changes of speech."

One good way I have found to avoid stepping on the player's role of determining what the character thinks, says, and how the character acts is to get into the habit of taking the word "You" out of descriptions or narrations.

Reynard · Apr 11, 2019

Oofta said:
"They keep glancing nervously at the captain of the guard before answering".

This seems like a piece of free information or at best the result of a successful perception check. Insight would provide some information about that behavior.

Skill checks exist to facilitate play byt assuming the character is aware of a lot more than the player. An Insight check is a rough model of the PC's intuition and/or experience with all the cues the NPC is giving off. "He looks nervous" is among those clues, not the answers. "Based on how nervous he looks, you are fairly certain he is lying or at least hiding the truth," is a better result from a successful insight check.

Warmaster Horus · Apr 11, 2019

When I DM I have the following method...

PC Insight equal to or less than NPC Deception = Roll 1d6, on even "You're pretty sure they're not telling the truth about something", on odd "You're pretty sure they're telling you the truth".
PC Insight beats NPC Deception = Roll 1d6 for fun. "You're pretty sure they're not telling the truth about something." or "You're pretty sure they're telling you the truth." based on what they're really doing.

I will often impose advantage/disadvatage on both sides of the equation without telling the players what my decision is and with straight up +5/-5 adjustments to regular rolls rather than allowing 2d20. The PC can describe the circumstances they want to have for questioning and I'll acknowledge but won't let them know if that's advantageous or not. For example if the questioner is an elf and the deceiver is an orc, the elf might make their check at Disadvantage (-5) and if the orc knows their tribe is nearby and will likely find them soon they might make their check at Advantage (+5). So even if the elf rolls an 18 it's still possible for the orc to beat them even if they only rolled an 8 (assuming no other modifiers).

Reynard · Apr 11, 2019

Warmaster Horus said:
When I DM I have the following method...

PC Insight equal to or less than NPC Deception = Roll 1d6, on even "You're pretty sure they're not telling the truth about something", on odd "You're pretty sure they're telling you the truth".
PC Insight beats NPC Deception = Roll 1d6 for fun. "You're pretty sure they're not telling the truth about something." or "You're pretty sure they're telling you the truth." based on what they're really doing.

So from the player's perspective there is no effect of a successful skill check.

Oofta · Apr 11, 2019

Reynard said:
This seems like a piece of free information or at best the result of a successful perception check. Insight would provide some information about that behavior.

Skill checks exist to facilitate play byt assuming the character is aware of a lot more than the player. An Insight check is a rough model of the PC's intuition and/or experience with all the cues the NPC is giving off. "He looks nervous" is among those clues, not the answers. "Based on how nervous he looks, you are fairly certain he is lying or at least hiding the truth," is a better result from a successful insight check.

Whereas I would say that it depends on the NPC. In my case, I'm assuming that Franky is a habitual liar and tries to hide what he's really thinking, even when he's telling the truth.

Now maybe noticing him glancing at the captain is a lower DC, possibly even low enough that it's automatically noticed. Or may it's a micro-expression, something he does so quickly that you really have to be paying attention to catch it. The insight skill represents how good you are at noticing and interpreting those minor expressions, glances and twitches that other people miss.

As far as what the PC believes, I don't tell them what they think. Best they'll get is a general idea of nervousness. As far as perception ... that might be useful to notice the glance but knowing that it's meaningful is different.

Of course, as always, there is no one true way.

TheSword · Apr 11, 2019

intuition should not be possible to tell if a person is lying because of the following scenario:

Madolf is on the rack, he has been tortured on and off for 6 days and the torturer comes to him again to ask the same question. “Did you plot the death of the king?” Madolf weeps the same answer he has given the previous 12 times, “no, I swear I didn’t, it was Bartok, it was only ever Bartok!”

It should not be possible to tell if a person is lying outright short of magical means (which is just a shortcut for being able to break the rules of nature).

- identify if someone is holding something back
- have a sense that they are a truthful person
- identify if a person is at their breaking point - these are all good uses.

However straight up - is this true or false. No I don’t think that is the purpose of insight.

Even in these cases the roll has to be made blind otherwise you’re giving players they wouldn’t have access too.

Hussar · Apr 12, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
I either mis-interpreted what you wrote the first time, or you (seem to be) backing off from your claim a little bit. I thought you meant that "you believe he is telling the truth" translates to "and you must roleplay it that way; your character believes this NPC, even if you still have suspicions".

So, yes, I'm one of the very few people who gets touchy about DMs saying "you believe..." because even though it's usually meant innocuously, the actual language crosses the line. But I do think there are lots of people out there (many of this forum) who think it's badwrongfun for the DM to dictate what a PC thinks and feels and believes.

You are, I think, the only one here claiming that "you must role-play it that way". No one else, I think, has made that claim.

And, considering over 80% of folks here seem to agree with how the skill works, I think your "lost of people" might be a tad bit of a confirmation bias. Since, really the only way you can really narrate a successful check to determine if an NPC is lying is to tell the player that his character believes that the NPC is lying.

Reynard · Apr 12, 2019

Oofta said:
As far as what the PC believes, I don't tell them what they think.

I did not use the word "belief." One of the GM's jobs is to serve as the characters' senses for the player. Telling a player their character "thinks" an NPC is lying is saying, "Your sense of that person tells you that person may be/is/isn't lying." It isn't dictating the character's thoughts or responses, it is providing crucial information the player asked for by making the insight check in the first place.

Guest 6801328 · Apr 12, 2019

Hussar said:
You are, I think, the only one here claiming that "you must role-play it that way". No one else, I think, has made that claim.

I find this response rather...strange.

No, I'm most certainly not claiming "you must role-play it that way." The exact opposite, in fact.

Now, I thought the poster to whom I was responding had said something along those lines, although his next post suggested otherwise, so I may very well be mistaken.

And, considering over 80% of folks here seem to agree with how the skill works, I think your "lost of people" might be a tad bit of a confirmation bias.

The "lots of people" to whom I was referring was on a topic that for the most part has nothing to do with this thread. It was a reference to the general player agency question, not the specific application being discussed here.

So that's two utter misapprehensions in one short post. If I didn't think of you as a perfectly reasonable and emotionally stable guy I might suspect that you're still seething about the exchange in the other thread and are just trying to find reasons to contradict me. Glad I don't have to wonder about that.

Since, really the only way you can really narrate a successful check to determine if an NPC is lying is to tell the player that his character believes that the NPC is lying.

Unfortunately, that's false. (And I'm not even including the case that the NPC is not lying...I assume that's an error of omission, not logic, on your part.) Even using your version of "skill checks" this one is easy to disprove:

"Vinny the Snake says he wasn't anywhere near the place."
"I roll Insight."
"His true intention is to mislead you."

Q.E.F.D.

Hussar · Apr 12, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
I find this response rather...strange.

No, I'm most certainly not claiming "you must role-play it that way." The exact opposite, in fact.

No, you're claiming that other people are claiming this and you're the only one saying it. Which is what I meant. I guess I should have been clearer. IOW, you're the one who is apparently putting words in people's mouths, which...

Now, I thought the poster to whom I was responding had said something along those lines, although his next post suggested otherwise, so I may very well be mistaken.

apparently, you have now realized and have retracted. Good, that gets somewhere.

The "lots of people" to whom I was referring was on a topic that for the most part has nothing to do with this thread. It was a reference to the general player agency question, not the specific application being discussed here.

Now, not being a mind reader, how was I supposed to know that. Considering you just took me to task for not being clearer, complaining that I didn't understand your meaning when you were unclear isn't terribly productive.

So that's two utter misapprehensions in one short post. If I didn't think of you as a perfectly reasonable and emotionally stable guy I might suspect that you're still seething about the exchange in the other thread and are just trying to find reasons to contradict me. Glad I don't have to wonder about that.

Nope. Other thread was annoying, to be sure, but, nope. I was unclear in my first point and you were unclear in yours. Perhaps we could both be clearer in making our points.

Unfortunately, that's false. (And I'm not even including the case that the NPC is not lying...I assume that's an error of omission, not logic, on your part.) Even using your version of "skill checks" this one is easy to disprove:

"Vinny the Snake says he wasn't anywhere near the place."
"I roll Insight."
"His true intention is to mislead you."

Q.E.F.D.

Ok, now that's just being petty. The obvious implication here is that the NPC is, in fact, attempting to deceive. Cheese weaseling, "his true intention is to mislead you" is, again the same meaning as "you think he's lying".

Yeah, bowing out again. This sort of pedantic babble is just too frustrating and the cherry blossoms are out.

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

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

Yes

No

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Reynard

Legend

Warmaster Horus

Explorer

Reynard

Legend

Oofta

Legend

TheSword

Legend

Hussar

Legend

Reynard

Legend

Guest 6801328

Guest

Hussar

Legend

Similar Threads