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

Elfcrusher said:

2) if a scene is properly set up so that the truth (or not) of the NPC can be determined by asking the right questions, looking for the right clues (including possibly spying on the NPC afterwards) then no Insight roll is needed.

Click to expand...

Which is why I never give 100% guaranteed concrete responses. It's never "he's lying" it's "he seems to be hiding something" or "they seemed honestly surprised when you told them the cook was dead". Sometimes it's even "she's calm and unconcerned" which could be a tip-off that somethings wrong because they should be upset or an emotional wreck.

If I were a perfect actor and my players were as good at picking up verbal and non-verbal queues as their PCs are this wouldn't be necessary. But the reality is I won't communicate every twitch or hesitation and even if I did it would end up relying on the skill of the player, not the PC to pick up on the subtleties.

I rely quite a bit on passive insight when doing this.

I said no because you don't use insight.

You perform an action and the DM determines the outcome which may involve making a Wisdom (insight) check.

ad_hoc said:

I said no because you don't use insight.

You perform an action and the DM determines the outcome which may involve making a Wisdom (insight) check.

Click to expand...

Hmm - that's still using insight. Who determines whether the check is needed isn't actually relevant to the question.

I just thought I'd throw in my 2 coppers on why I allow people to ask for insight, use passive insights or ask for checks with an example. As far as how we get to the point of relying on a PC skill instead of player skill, I really don't care. To me that's just a stylistic choice. My point is that I think skills like insight can be used to give a lot of hints and clues, it can add depth and richness to the game that doesn't rely on DM or player skills.

Scenario:
The group is questioning a suspect in a who-dunnit. Think typical police procedural with the cops interviewing the suspect, Franky Nine Fingers.

So short, but simple (the conversation would obviously continue). From the text, there's no possible way of knowing whether or not Franky is on the up-and-up. So let's add in some details you could pick up with insight. But let's say Franky has a decent deception skill and whether or not the PC should pick up on subtle details is not certain

It's obvious our Franky boy is hiding something, questioning/actions ensue. He's probably now suspect #1.

What's going on? He may not be a primary suspect, but there's something fishy. Maybe the captain of the guard knows something? Maybe he visited Franky? Or maybe Franky is being 100% honest but suspects that someone is watching his house.

Or any number of other variations. Both of these scenarios are incredibly common fictional tropes. The point is that subtle queues may or may not be picked up. It shouldn't be up to the DM to act this out or the players to pick up on it because then it's not the PCs doing the questioning, it's the players. I am not my PC.

Mort said:

Hmm - that's still using insight. Who determines whether the check is needed isn't actually relevant to the question.

Click to expand...

The character doesn't use insight though.

They do a thing. Insight might be involved in resolving their action.

I'd be fine with passive insight to tell whether something isn't quite right, just like passive perception.

"I roll insight to tell if they are lying" goes against how 5e is designed.

1. There is no mechanism to stop the player from rolling until they get a 20 so you're essentially playing a game with everyone having passive insight scores of 20+ rather than 10+.
2. Rolls should be exciting and pivotal. Having the party make ability checks every time someone talks to them is not.
3. Players describe what their characters are doing in 5e. They don't declare that they are using X skill.

Insight, as written, lets you attempt to determine the true intentions of a creature. If the creature is intending to lie to you, you can use insight to potentially determine this, likewise it will let you determine if they are intending to be honest with you. If they mislead or lie to you because of a mistake, then it is not their intention to do so, and a successful Insight check will let you know that they do not appear to be lying.
So it would seem that a successful insight check should let you know what the subject's intentions are, but those intentions may not lead to the truth if the subject is mistaken. Just because you think they are not attempting to deceive you does not mean they are telling the truth.
If a player fails their insight check I treat it much like a success. They believe the intentions of the subject are whatever the subject would want them to believe. If the subject is lying and a PC fails their roll then the PC is told that the subject does not appear to be intentionally misleading them.

Oofta said:

I just thought I'd throw in my 2 coppers on why I allow people to ask for insight, use passive insights or ask for checks with an example. As far as how we get to the point of relying on a PC skill instead of player skill, I really don't care. To me that's just a stylistic choice. My point is that I think skills like insight can be used to give a lot of hints and clues, it can add depth and richness to the game that doesn't rely on DM or player skills.

Scenario:
The group is questioning a suspect in a who-dunnit. Think typical police procedural with the cops interviewing the suspect, Franky Nine Fingers.

PC: "Where were you last night after dusk."
Franky: "I was at home as usual."
PC: "Any witnesses?"
Franky: "Nah, I live alone. Nobody but me."
PC: "So you know nothing about Jimmy the Nose dying?"
Franky: "Jimmy's dead? No I didn't know that"​

So short, but simple (the conversation would obviously continue). From the text, there's no possible way of knowing whether or not Franky is on the up-and-up. So let's add in some details you could pick up with insight. But let's say Franky has a decent deception skill and whether or not the PC should pick up on subtle details is not certain

PC: "Where were you last night after dusk."
Franky: "I was at home as usual." [he's being sarcastic and condescending]
PC: "Any witnesses?"
Franky: "Nah, I live alone. Nobody but me." [shift's a bit in his seat, this question makes him uncomfortable]
PC: "So you know nothing about Jimmy the Nose dying?"
Franky: "Jimmy's dead? No I didn't know that" [not really surprised]​

It's obvious our Franky boy is hiding something, questioning/actions ensue. He's probably now suspect #1.

PC: "Where were you last night after dusk."
Franky: "I was at home as usual." [he paused slightly after "at home", is he hiding something?]
PC: "Any witnesses?"
Franky: "Nah, I live alone. Nobody but me." [Franky glanced nervously at the captain of the guard. Why?]
PC: "So you know nothing about Jimmy the Nose dying?"
Franky: "Jimmy's dead? No I didn't know that" [Seems to be honestly surprised]​

What's going on? He may not be a primary suspect, but there's something fishy. Maybe the captain of the guard knows something? Maybe he visited Franky? Or maybe Franky is be being 100% honest but suspects that someone is watching his house.

Or any number of other variations. Both of these scenarios are incredibly common fictional tropes. The point is that subtle queues may or may not be picked up. It shouldn't be up to the DM to act this out or the players to pick up on it because then it's not the PCs doing the questioning, it's the players. I am not my PC.

Click to expand...

I very much agree with the part in bold, and I think it’s one reason it’s so hard to handle lying well in an RPG. So hard, that although I rail against using Insight as a binary lie detector test, I understand the appeal: all the other options are either really hard to do well (requiring either fast thinking or preparation time...or both) or they are generally transparent, nudge-nudge-wink-wink euphemisms for binary lie detection.

So, yeah, I get just wanting to avoid the whole thing with a simple, mechanical solution.

ad_hoc said:

The character doesn't use insight though.

They do a thing. Insight might be involved in resolving their action.

Click to expand...

And can insight resolving the action result the PC sussing out a lie?

ad_hoc said:

I'd be fine with passive insight to tell whether something isn't quite right, just like passive perception.

Click to expand...

Ok

ad_hoc said:

"I roll insight to tell if they are lying" goes against how 5e is designed.

Click to expand...

But that wasn't the question.

ad_hoc said:

1. There is no mechanism to stop the player from rolling until they get a 20 so you're essentially playing a game with everyone having passive insight scores of 20+ rather than 10+.
2. Rolls should be exciting and pivotal. Having the party make ability checks every time someone talks to them is not.
3. Players describe what their characters are doing in 5e. They don't declare that they are using X skill.

Click to expand...

Again, it seems you're arguing about a different question than I am asking.

I'm not asking if the player gets to declare an insight check.

The question is does the insight skill (which exists, players can choose to be proficient in it, even) allow for telling if someone else is lying.

ad_hoc said:

The character doesn't use insight though.

They do a thing. Insight might be involved in resolving their action.

I'd be fine with passive insight to tell whether something isn't quite right, just like passive perception.

"I roll insight to tell if they are lying" goes against how 5e is designed.

1. There is no mechanism to stop the player from rolling until they get a 20 so you're essentially playing a game with everyone having passive insight scores of 20+ rather than 10+.
2. Rolls should be exciting and pivotal. Having the party make ability checks every time someone talks to them is not.
3. Players describe what their characters are doing in 5e. They don't declare that they are using X skill.

Click to expand...

This isn't how I see it for whatever that is worth.
A player uses insight in one of two occasions, they are actively curious about a subjects intentions (such as questioning a subject), or a subject is actively attempting to deceive them (as a DM may call for an insight check if they think the PCs should have a chance of spotting a deception roll).
A player cannot roll until they get a 20 because they have no reason to. If they succeed then they are told some version of the subject intentions are true, and they are also told this if they fail. Either way, the character believes they have succeeded.

D1Tremere said:

Either way, the character believes they have succeeded.

Click to expand...

For a lot of people this crosses the line of agency.