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

pemerton · Apr 12, 2019

Hriston said:
You make an effort to glean clues from a creature's body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms in an attempt to search out a lie. If the outcome of that effort is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure, make a Wisdom check. If you're proficient in Insight, add your proficiency bonus to the check.

I want to unpack this a bit.

Page 61 of the Basic PDF says "A Wisdom check might reflect an effort to read body language, understand someone’s feelings, notice things about the environment, or care for an injured person." And page 58 says "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

Putting these together, it seems that the following is true:

If a player declares that his/her PC attempts to read body language, understand someone’s feelings, notice things about the environment, or care for an injured person, and if the GM takes the view that that action by the PC has a chance of failure and/or an uncertain outcome, then the GM should call for a WIS check to determine the result of the character's action.

Now, page 62 says that "Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms."

Putting that together with the above, we get:

If a player declares that his/her PC attempts to glean clues from body language, speech habits and changes in mannerisms, so as to understand someone's feelings and true intentions (including where these pertain to telling a lie or to the being's next move), and if the GM takes the view that that action has a chance of failure and/or an uncertain outcome, then the GM should call for a WIS (Insight) check to determine the result of the character's action.

Some resulting complexities inlcude: on what basis ought the GM to take the view that the action has a chance of failure and/or an uncertain outcome?

There seem to be few cases in which a player would declare such an action and success be automatic: eg if the GM narrates that a NPC is rolling around in laughter, or has tears streaming down his/her face, then either the player would know why (because it's been already communicated in play) and hence not declare this sort of action, or else the cause of the mirth or the upset would be uncertain to the player, in which case I find it hard to think of a scenario (given my conception of how RPGs are normally played) in which the PC would be certain simply by studying the body language etc of the NPC.

It's quite conceivable, on the other hand, that there could be many cases where there is no chance of success - eg if an NPC is as inscrutable as the sphinx - but on the other hand the very presence of the rules for WIS and WIS (Insight) checks in the game seems to imply that actions of this sort might sometimes succeed, and it would seem a bit of a hosing for the GM to rule very frequently that this or that NPC is too inscrutable to be "read".

Here's another complexity: what should we take to be the result of such an action, if successful? Presumably it's not that the PC knows the NPC's body language. That's what is read; it's not itself the reading. Presumably it's either the clues (which is perhaps what the Insight description on p 62 points towards) or its the feelings and true intentions (which is perhaps what the WIS check description on p 61 points towards). I certainly think the language on p 62 ("such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move") indicates that the feelings, true intentions etc which the character is (as per p 61) attempting to "understand" might include an intention to lie/deceive or an intention to make this or that next move.

So whether or not Insight can be used to determine that a NPC is speaking with the intention to lie deceive seems to me to turn on whether the table takes the result of these sorts of actions to be gleaning certain clues or understanding certain intentions/feelings to which the gleaned clues point. Given the ambiguity in this respect between pp 61 and 62, I think a table could reasonably run it either way. Personally I would favour the second of those approaches, because generally I think a RPG works better when players are able to declare actions that (if they succeed) substantially improve their PCs' positions. And I worry that simply telling the player the clues may not add very much to what a savvy player can discern from the GM's framing of the situation, which seems to make declaring the action (and hence risking whatever consequences might flow from failure) somewhat pointless.

pemerton · Apr 12, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
Yes, that's one possible way of playing RPGs.

Another way is that the player is free to decide what their character thinks and believes.

Although, I suppose that if a player is required to roleplay a certain thing if they fail an Insight check, that makes a handy consequence to rolling the dice:

Player: "I think he's lying...I study his face and listen to his tone of voice to see if he seems nervous."
DM: "That will require an Insight check, but if you fail that means your character will have to abide by whatever conclusion I dictate."
Player: "Hells no...I'll just stick with my instinct that he's lying, TYVM."

(I'm being facetious, but to me this illustrates the fallacy of trying to tell players what their characters believe.)

Depending on context, I wouldn't necessarily use that as the consequence of a failed Insight check that was used to resolve an attempt to get a "read" on an NPC.

There are some contexts (table mood, player mood, which player, what RPG are we playing, what's the nature of this campaign, etc) in which it can be fun to invite a player to play his/her PC against player knowledge. The Dying Earth RPG is built on this premise!, but the idea that this can be fun doesn't have to be confined to a system that is built around it.

But there are other options. I can't think of an instance of play involving lying right at the moment, but I can remember the following Insight check in a skill challenge in my 4e game:

The PCs were negotiating with some maruts. The player of the scholar character, knowing that only one success was needed to win the challenge, made an Insight check with the goal of establishing his PC's knowledge of what final argument would sway the maruts. The player succeeded on this check, and so I invited him to then state the relevant argument, which he did.

I can't remember, a couple of years later, what my narration of failure would have been, but it wouldn't have been to tell the player a false belief his PC had about the maruts' intentions and arguments. Probably something more along the lines of the maruts telling him that they had had enough of his arguments, and were going to stick to their contract. Insight is a social skill, and so the actions that are declared that bring it into play involve interacting with people so as to be able to "read" them. So failures can be narrated drawing on the full range of consequences for doing poorly in social interaction.

iserith · Apr 12, 2019

pemerton said:
I want to unpack this a bit.

Page 61 of the Basic PDF says "A Wisdom check might reflect an effort to read body language, understand someone’s feelings, notice things about the environment, or care for an injured person." And page 58 says "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

Putting these together, it seems that the following is true:

If a player declares that his/her PC attempts to read body language, understand someone’s feelings, notice things about the environment, or care for an injured person, and if the GM takes the view that that action by the PC has a chance of failure and/or an uncertain outcome, then the GM should call for a WIS check to determine the result of the character's action.

Now, page 62 says that "Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms."

Putting that together with the above, we get:

If a player declares that his/her PC attempts to glean clues from body language, speech habits and changes in mannerisms, so as to understand someone's feelings and true intentions (including where these pertain to telling a lie or to the being's next move), and if the GM takes the view that that action has a chance of failure and/or an uncertain outcome, then the GM should call for a WIS (Insight) check to determine the result of the character's action.

Some resulting complexities inlcude: on what basis ought the GM to take the view that the action has a chance of failure and/or an uncertain outcome?

There seem to be few cases in which a player would declare such an action and success be automatic: eg if the GM narrates that a NPC is rolling around in laughter, or has tears streaming down his/her face, then either the player would know why (because it's been already communicated in play) and hence not declare this sort of action, or else the cause of the mirth or the upset would be uncertain to the player, in which case I find it hard to think of a scenario (given my conception of how RPGs are normally played) in which the PC would be certain simply by studying the body language etc of the NPC.

It's quite conceivable, on the other hand, that there could be many cases where there is no chance of success - eg if an NPC is as inscrutable as the sphinx - but on the other hand the very presence of the rules for WIS and WIS (Insight) checks in the game seems to imply that actions of this sort might sometimes succeed, and it would seem a bit of a hosing for the GM to rule very frequently that this or that NPC is too inscrutable to be "read".

Here's another complexity: what should we take to be the result of such an action, if successful? Presumably it's not that the PC knows the NPC's body language. That's what is read; it's not itself the reading. Presumably it's either the clues (which is perhaps what the Insight description on p 62 points towards) or its the feelings and true intentions (which is perhaps what the WIS check description on p 61 points towards). I certainly think the language on p 62 ("such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move") indicates that the feelings, true intentions etc which the character is (as per p 61) attempting to "understand" might include an intention to lie/deceive or an intention to make this or that next move.

So whether or not Insight can be used to determine that a NPC is speaking with the intention to lie deceive seems to me to turn on whether the table takes the result of these sorts of actions to be gleaning certain clues or understanding certain intentions/feelings to which the gleaned clues point. Given the ambiguity in this respect between pp 61 and 62, I think a table could reasonably run it either way. Personally I would favour the second of those approaches, because generally I think a RPG works better when players are able to declare actions that (if they succeed) substantially improve their PCs' positions. And I worry that simply telling the player the clues may not add very much to what a savvy player can discern from the GM's framing of the situation, which seems to make declaring the action (and hence risking whatever consequences might flow from failure) somewhat pointless.

One must also take the rules in the DMG into account for adjudication actions. In particular this adds another requirement to the DM calling for ability checks - there must be a meaningful consequence for failure. So in addition to there being an uncertain outcome and a chance for failure, there must be a meaningful consequence for failure. All three conditions must be true for the DM to call for a check. Otherwise the DM just narrates the result as success or failure without a check.

It's also worth reading the section on Social Interactions in the DMG for what appears to be intended tasks to be resolved by Insight checks (again, if the above criteria are met) in a more structured social interaction challenge. A PC in such a challenge is going to be trying to suss out the NPC's ideal, bond, flaw, or agenda, then using those as a means to adjust the NPC's attitude before making the ask.

Immortal Sun · Apr 12, 2019

No.

UNLESS the character has specific knowledge that would indicate what they're hearing is a lie.

Otherwise at best it'd give you a hunch that something seems off about what the guy is saying.

Umbran · Apr 12, 2019

pemerton said:
Some resulting complexities inlcude: on what basis ought the GM to take the view that the action has a chance of failure and/or an uncertain outcome?

Well, given the existence of the Deception skill, that one is not hard to unpack - our rules give us a DC. The NPC's Charisma and Deception skill, and any other relevant factors (like, say, the NPC is a speaking stone with no facial expression or body language to read) will determine a DC. If it is impossible for the character to hit that DC, then there's no chance of success. If the DC is lower than the PC's skill modifier, then there is no chance of failure.

Warmaster Horus · Apr 12, 2019

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

No, they know what they rolled and hear me state a result. If their roll was good they can weight on the side that they succeeded and what I said is correct. But it might not. Knowing the state of another's thoughts can be a skill but seems a bit overpowering to make it an absolute science. YMMV

iserith · Apr 12, 2019

Warmaster Horus said:
No, they know what they rolled and hear me state a result. If their roll was good they can weight on the side that they succeeded and what I said is correct. But it might not. Knowing the state of another's thoughts can be a skill but seems a bit overpowering to make it an absolute science. YMMV

Whether or not a PC noticing that an NPC is lying is perceived as being "overpowered" would definitely be dependent upon the game, as you say. If it is deemed "overpowered" though, as I mentioned in another thread, I think this is chiefly going to be the DM's fault due to how he or she structures social interaction challenges. If sussing out a lie is the only real challenge that is typically presented, then the players are incentivized to pump up Insight and then describe what they want to do accordingly, greatly reducing the difficulty of the challenge. It's like putting forth pit traps in every exploration challenge - pumping Perception and buying up all the 10-foot-poles is a likely result for the players, and pit traps will barely be a speed bump at that point.

The DMG suggests other ways to structure social interaction challenges where there's more to it than picking up on untruths. In a game like mine which uses these rules, there's a much greater incentive to try to uncover the NPC's ideal, bond, flaw, or agenda which can then be used to the PCs' advantage in adjusting the NPC's attitude as the PCs make their case. Improving the NPC's attitude temporarily increases the NPC's willingness to make sacrifices or take risks to do as the PCs ask and with a lower DC to boot, if a Charisma check is necessary to resolve what the NPC will do. As well, just like I would telegraph the presence of a trap or a secret door, I'm telegraphing that the NPC is lying by offering clues to that effect while also playing the NPC faithfully according to the personal characteristics I had to flesh out to design the challenge. If the players are paying attention, they can pick up on this which disincentives "Insight checking" every NPC they meet to avoid a "gotcha." (A meaningful consequence for failure on a failed Insight check - a requirement for there to be an ability check at all - also disincentivizes this behavior.)

So, in short, if detecting lies seems too powerful, a good solution may be to look under the hood and tinker with how social interaction challenges are structured and presented.

Guest 6801328 · Apr 12, 2019

Hussar said:
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...

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

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.

Ok, time for some thread forensics. Reading back through I both acknowledge that I wasn't as clear as I should have been, and I wasn't paying attention to who wrote what.

First there was this:

D1Tremere said:
Either way, the character believes they have succeeded.

To which I replied:

Elfcrusher said:
For a lot of people this crosses the line of agency.

And I'll stand by that claim. I do think a lot of people, here on this forum, would say that dictating "the character believes" as a result of a die roll is crossing the line of player agency.

At the same time, I don't think that in this context a lot of people would take offense at, "You think he's telling the truth..." because, although it's largely meant in the same spirit, I don't think it carries the full weight of dictating beliefs. If a DM says, "You think he's telling the truth" and the player says, "Hmmm...I still don't quite trust him" I don't think (god I hope) many DMs would say, "No, sorry, you used Insight and now you must abide by the die roll."

And yet, that's what I thought D1Tremere was saying. And if he was, I think a lot of people here would balk at that.

Then D1Tremere wrote:

D1Tremere said:
The player is still free to determine how their character would act on their revelation.

By which I think he means that there's no such constraint. Or it could mean that the PC's beliefs have been dictated, and the player is free to choose actions that take that into account. Honestly I'm not sure.

But then to further confuse things, you wrote a post beginning with:

Hussar said:
The orc stabs you for 15 damage. It hurts. Oh, noes, the DM is trampling on my character....

...and somehow I thought that was also coming from D1Tremere. So I've made a couple of references to D1Trememe mitigating his early statements, but that was you. :-/ Sorry...I've made a muddle of it.

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.

Yeah, ok, guilty. That was a glib response.

My real response is: yes, your'e right, there's no way to use Insight as a lie detector without telling the player, in some form, what their character thinks.

And that's a major reason why Insight shouldn't be used as a lie detector.

I'd much rather have hints and clues be revealed, and let the player decide what the character thinks. Or reveal (as per @iserith) bonds, flaws, etc...and again let the player decide what the character thinks.

iserith · Apr 12, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
My real response is: yes, your'e right, there's no way to use Insight as a lie detector without telling the player, in some form, what their character thinks.

I disagree. Like searching for and finding a hidden object, the DM need only say what is discovered - the NPC is giving off tells that indicate untruthfulness - not what the character thinks or believes.

Guest 6801328 · Apr 12, 2019

iserith said:
I disagree. Like searching for and finding a hidden object, the DM need only say what is discovered - the NPC is giving off tells that indicate untruthfulness - not what the character thinks or believes.

Can you give an example, because I don’t think we are disagreeing.

“The NPC has a bead of sweat running down his forehead even though it’s cold” is evidence that is left up to the player to interpret. I think that’s fine.

EDIT: To rephrase, I think the right approach is to give the player evidence to interpret, but not provide the interpretation.

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.

pemerton

Legend

pemerton

Legend

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Immortal Sun

Guest

Umbran

Mod Squad

Warmaster Horus

Explorer

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Guest 6801328

Guest

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Guest 6801328

Guest

Similar Threads