If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?

GlassJaw said:

If a PC asks to roll Insight against an NPC telling the truth...

Click to expand...

Slight point of order here... I've found the game works best as intended: the players don't call for rolls - the DM calls for a roll only if there is a chance of success or failure and there is a meaningful consequence to failure to the PCs' actions. So like this:

Bawylie said:

I ask the player what the character is doing to determine whether or not the NPC is telling the truth and then determine the DC based on the approach.

Click to expand...

Of course, with no meaningful consequence of failure, I'd go with this:

iserith said:

I likely don't set a DC. The character succeeds, no roll, perhaps because the truthful NPC exhibits no body language, speech habit, or change in mannerisms that suggest a deception.

Click to expand...

And keep in mind:

GlassJaw said:

A player is always the final arbiter as to whether their character is persuaded or intimidated.

Click to expand...

Indeed, the player has every right to roleplay their character as naive or paranoid. No specific die roll needed to do so.

And more good advice on these themes here:

Imaculata said:

...If the players want to find out if they are lying, they have to catch the npc's on falsehoods or inconsistencies in their story, rather than a lucky dice roll. To me that is far more exciting roleplaying wise.
...
When a player searches a room, I ask them what they are looking for. If they want to disable a trap, I ask them how they want to disable it. I do the same with social checks. You can't just tell a person is lying, but perhaps you can tell if he's nervous? Or whether the things he says are factual? The player needs to state an approach, and then I determine if it's an auto-fail, auto-success or a dice roll.
....
So when an npc says he has the players surrounded, I don't want my players to say "Can I make an insight check to tell if he's lying?". Instead I want them to say something like "Does it look like he has a lot of allies in the bar?" or "Do I see other people with weapons?" or "Does the npc seem nervous?" or "How does the rest of the tavern respond to these threats?"

Click to expand...

Not to say any of this is simple - after years of DMing 5e, I'm still working to master this style of play. Players at our tables (especially those with habits from older editions) still try to "press buttons" on their character sheet, invoking a skill mechanic while asking to roll OR even just rolling and announcing a result. That's not just on them, though. I need to strive to do better at setting the scenes and awarding auto-successes for clever play to keep the positive feedback loop going - then the players will more often tell me approaches and goals rather than grabbing dice first and asking questions later.

I always find it surprising how many DM's insist on only the DM calling for skill rolls. I've honestly never played this way. We've always assumed that a player can make a skill roll whenever the player chooses. Granted, of course, sometimes the DM will call for rolls too, fair enough, but, I've never played in a game where the players are not allowed to make skill rolls.

Maybe I'm just too gamist in my approach.

Elfcrusher said:

This is yet another reason why using a skill to "detect" truth or lies is a terrible idea.

Click to expand...

We have skills to notice things hidden and to put together clues, I'm unsure why a skill to read someone's emotions are bad. Characters can be more (or less) skilled at reading others just like they can be more or less skilled at noticing a pickpocket.

I don't "stop" them from making skill rolls, I just ask them what they are doing and why.

Because when they say "I want to see if he is lying" the answer may be obvious upon inspection, like looking in a box for a cat...

So I say "no roll needed, he is lying his butt off" , OR I say "its hard to tell, go ahead and roll".

Hussar said:

I always find it surprising how many DM's insist on only the DM calling for skill rolls. I've honestly never played this way. We've always assumed that a player can make a skill roll whenever the player chooses. Granted, of course, sometimes the DM will call for rolls too, fair enough, but, I've never played in a game where the players are not allowed to make skill rolls.

Click to expand...

Yeah - my players are always asking whether or not they can make this check or that check. The games with kids especially - they want to roll dice and they keep looking for ways to use their skills. With the kids I insist that they not just make a roll but that they propose what they want to do - "I want to use my Insight to..." or "I want to use my Athletics to..." - and then I'll tell them whether or not they just succeed without having to roll, or if I want them to roll, or if what they're proposing is impossible so it won't matter how they roll (the kids are actually pretty good at not proposing impossible stuff for their characters though - much better than the guys I gamed with back when I was their age tbh).

The table I've been playing with for going on two decades now (yeesh) used to do the same kind of "look through the skill list to propose an action and a skill for it" when they wanted to do something. Since we switched to 13th age, which doesn't have skills but has the more looser idea of backgrounds, they're more likely to just propose what they want to do first and give me an idea of which of their character's backgrounds suggests that they should get a bonus to the roll. Even though it's basically the same thing, it's more fun for me because it's more fun to hear their stories about why their background should apply rather than arguments over whether Perception should work for this instead of Investigation or whatever because they have a higher Perception score. (I do have the one player who really tries his best to shoehorn his highest background into every check just like he'd always try to figure out some way to use his best skill for every check - no worries when I tell him no, but that's part of the fun for him, and honestly it's fun to hear him rattle off bizarre stories of why his background should apply even when he's clearly just trying to get that extra bonus on his roll).

Hussar said:

I always find it surprising how many DM's insist on only the DM calling for skill rolls. I've honestly never played this way. We've always assumed that a player can make a skill roll whenever the player chooses. Granted, of course, sometimes the DM will call for rolls too, fair enough, but, I've never played in a game where the players are not allowed to make skill rolls.

Maybe I'm just too gamist in my approach.

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t say you were too “gamist” but that’s largely because I find no value in Forge-waffle.

Apart from that, when I played (for a very limited time) 1st edition, my DM did ALL the rolling except damage dice. Now I was 8, and that’s fair. But he rolled everyone else too (his brothers) and they were 9 and 12. In 2nd, I remember rolling to hit and making ability checks when asked to by the DM.

But it wasn’t (in my experience) until 3rd edition that players started asking to make skill checks. And they often short-handed their play down to “I roll to seduce” rather than actually take an in-game action. At the time, I played that way and didn’t mind. But when I started DM-ing 3rd ed games, I did mind. (I’d DM-ed in 2nd, but not 3rd). And it was jarring.

4E sort of doubled down on player declarations by attaching powers to them. Fair enough, that’s how that game played. But it did make an effort to go back to the basic conversation of the game wherein a scenario was posited and the DM asked what you do about it. Now, what you did was play a card that had a name, description, and effect, so we had “I use White Raven’s re-arrange deck chairs and shift my allies around while attacking the goblin for 3W+STR damage and half that if I miss.”

Bringing us to 5th. Now (again, in my experience) 3rd and 4E were a little bit “button-pushy” insofar as players seemed to interact more with the game system than with the adventure scenario. That’s not all bad, and there are some outstanding innovations in those games. 5th took those, and went back to a more 2nd edition play experience with recent/modern system updates. Very neat.

But the biggest change comes here: 3rd and 4E told the DM what to set the DCs at (or otherwise included them in the ability/skill descriptions or wherever else). 5th says the dice are neutral arbiters, tools the DM can use to determine outcomes, but not required to. It lays out “a middle path” that rewards clever use of players talents and assets and also rewards paying attention to the game so that some things don’t need a roll at all. In other words, DM adjudication is back in a big way for 5th. And since it is now a co-equal component in action resolution, it is only right that judgments be fair, consistent, and informed when adjudicating a player’s action.

As to fair, consistent, and informed that brings us to your point. You’ve always played some other way where players can declare skill use. You’re surprised that today some DMs say players aren’t allowed to make these rolls. Well, in order to be fair, consistent, and informed we’ve adapted/adopted some practices or rules of order that empower players while avoiding ambiguity and bias.

Anyway the whole thing has shifted from 3rd & 4E’s “can you roll higher than this number?” to 2nd & 5th’s “what do you do about all this?” And that shift suggests a different answer than “I throw dice at it until it’s gone.”

I added a new post with the quote to which I was responding.

Elfcrusher said:

This is yet another reason why using a skill to "detect" truth or lies is a terrible idea.

Click to expand...

I disagree. While I favor role playing over roll playing, being able to determine when someone is lying is a skill that can be learned. Police, especially detectives, tend to get better at reading when someone is being deceitful the longer they do their jobs. Some of that is due to an increased level of suspicion, but there are some fairly common signs when someone is lying. They aren't foolproof, but they do help.

That being said, if you don't like using the Sense Motive skill in your game that's your prerogative that's fine, but there is some basis in reality for having it as a skill.

Hussar said:

I always find it surprising how many DM's insist on only the DM calling for skill rolls. I've honestly never played this way. We've always assumed that a player can make a skill roll whenever the player chooses. Granted, of course, sometimes the DM will call for rolls too, fair enough, but, I've never played in a game where the players are not allowed to make skill rolls.

Maybe I'm just too gamist in my approach.

Click to expand...

Same here. I don't require a player to state "I'm looking through the text to see if I recognize anything from my studies" instead of saying "I do a history check" if it's clear they're talking about the texts.

Sometimes I'll ask for more detail, sometimes I'll just give them the information I was going to give them anyway. If they roll exceptionally well I may add a little extra "flair" and details that isn't really important to the story but that's just something I add on the spot for color. If a history check isn't important or not appropriate I'll simply ignore the roll, make up some obscure fact or ask them what they're trying to accomplish.

While I encourage people to state things in-character, I don't see a need to treat every action like Jeopardy where things have to be said using the correct structure. No need for a wording gestapo if the intent is clear.

Bawylie said:

I wouldn’t say you were too “gamist” but that’s largely because I find no value in Forge-waffle.

Click to expand...

I've got to ask. Forge-waffle?

Arvok said:

I disagree. While I favor role playing over roll playing, being able to determine when someone is lying is a skill that can be learned. Police, especially detectives, tend to get better at reading when someone is being deceitful the longer they do their jobs. Some of that is due to an increased level of suspicion, but there are some fairly common signs when someone is lying. They aren't foolproof, but they do help.

That being said, if you don't like using the Sense Motive skill in your game that's your prerogative that's fine, but there is some basis in reality for having it as a skill.

Click to expand...

I was an investigator for 12 years and now I supervise a team of investigators. Civil/insurance fraud, generally, sometimes criminal. Our ability to “detect” lies is no better or more reliable than a coin toss. The very best of us are right 55% of the time.

We know when people are lying after we compare statements given to other records and witness accounts. I’ve never once used “sweat on the upper lip” or “touching their face” or “not making eye contact” to determine the veracity of anything.

I have seen anger, nervousness, calmness, and other demeanors in the course of interviews and trials. I have seen people stare wide-eyed at their lawyer after every question, before answering, hoping for some direction. What does that tell you? I’ve seen people get enraged over questions about their dog’s injuries and not care at all if they’re accused of lying about their own. What does that tell you? I’ve seen people sincerely testify to things that are outright wrong or insane - but they believe them to be true. What does that tell you?

In my opinion, insight isn’t a lie detector. In my games, I try to use it as an opportunity to fill-in-the-blank or perhaps add two-and-two. A flash of insight might be something like “NPC is adamant in their position, animated and louder than a conversation between two people should be. It’s almost performative. But who is the intended audience?” Or maybe “They show clear signs of inebriation, the exaggerated signs of inebriation you see when sober people are mimicking drunkenness.”
Or “they’re uninterested/bored with the conversation.”

Anyway, just my 2 cents on it. Insight gives something, sometimes something useful, sometimes something interesting, but it’s on you to do something with it. It doesn’t detect lies or truth. Unless you want it to, then heck go wild. But even those of us whose job it is to determine lies and truth don’t get it from cold-reading.