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

Bawylie · Apr 1, 2019

Hussar said:
Heh. It's somewhat ironic. Folks in this thread have made a very specific point about how they are following the rules in the way they play. Yet, when you actually point out what the rules say about the skill, then suddenly the rules don't matter quite so much.

Seems somewhat inconsistent no?

I think that might’ve been me.

I said I don’t think Insight can determine whether a statement is true or false. I see the text “determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting a next move...”

IMO, that means you might determine whether someone intends to deceive you, persuade you, intimidate you, seduce you, distract you, confuse you, cheat you, deal straight with you, or what they might do next - but I don’t think it means “you can tell that NPC’s statement is a falsehood/truth.”

I base that on personal experience but I acknowledge my interpretation here is a little strict. I think if it could determine what statements were lies, it would say so. And I think THAT because every time anyone asks Crawford a rule question, his answer is like “the rules say X so it does X. If it were intended to do Y it would say Y.”

My opinion notwithstanding, it would still be a totally valid reading of the rules to say “insight can determine truth/lies.”

I still don’t think it can, but what do I know? Maybe it’s better and more useful if it does.

Hussar · Apr 1, 2019

Iserith said:
When did this become a power struggle between players and DM in your view? We each have roles as defined by the rules of the game. I don't intrude on theirs. They don't intrude on mine.

It has always been a power struggle. Always. From Day 1, there has been a tension between the power at the table between the DM and the players. Every edition of the game and many other games beside have been written to address this tension. 3e took the tension and wrapped it up in the mechanics - taking the power away from both the players and the DM in an attempt to level the playing field. 4e went much further and tried to hand more power to the players by making the mechanics very predictable. 5e has swung back the other way by putting power back in the DM's hands with the whole "rulings not rules" approach.

Me, I prefer the players to have more control over the game than what 5e advocates for. I do. I want the players to be able to tell me what happens in the game when they try to do something, rather than the other way around. My vision of the table is that the DM is first of equals rather than a more traditional pyramid approach which 5e pushes for.

Which means, I'm not going to approach the game the way you are. The notion that the players should try to avoid skill checks because skill checks are too random, wouldn't occur to me. Players should be trying to use their skills because successes let them tell me what happens in the game. You rolled a fantastic persuasion check, congratulations. You get to tell me that you bypassed that guard that you were trying to talk your way past.

It's not a better/worse thing. It's about me relaxing a lot of control over the game and placing it squarely in the hands of my players.

iserith · Apr 1, 2019

Hussar said:
It has always been a power struggle. Always. From Day 1, there has been a tension between the power at the table between the DM and the players. Every edition of the game and many other games beside have been written to address this tension. 3e took the tension and wrapped it up in the mechanics - taking the power away from both the players and the DM in an attempt to level the playing field. 4e went much further and tried to hand more power to the players by making the mechanics very predictable. 5e has swung back the other way by putting power back in the DM's hands with the whole "rulings not rules" approach.

Me, I prefer the players to have more control over the game than what 5e advocates for. I do. I want the players to be able to tell me what happens in the game when they try to do something, rather than the other way around. My vision of the table is that the DM is first of equals rather than a more traditional pyramid approach which 5e pushes for.

Which means, I'm not going to approach the game the way you are. The notion that the players should try to avoid skill checks because skill checks are too random, wouldn't occur to me. Players should be trying to use their skills because successes let them tell me what happens in the game. You rolled a fantastic persuasion check, congratulations. You get to tell me that you bypassed that guard that you were trying to talk your way past.

It's not a better/worse thing. It's about me relaxing a lot of control over the game and placing it squarely in the hands of my players.

I think it's a corruption of the design intent to view it as a power struggle. What a bleak viewpoint, too. The players and DM have separate roles, that's all. It's not about power, but a synergy to produce a fun time for everyone and an exciting, memorable story as a result of play.

Guest 6801328 · Apr 1, 2019

This is getting more and more surreal.

Hussar said:
I mean, if we're going to cheese weasel rules lawyer the meaning of "Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie " as not actually knowing whether they are lying or not, then, well, it's pretty hard for me to take folks seriously when they insist they are following the spirit of the game. The fact that you, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], see no problems with what [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] is saying says to me that you are more interested in being right than actually discussing this.

Don't you think, if Insight was intended as lie detection, it would have read something along the lines of, "Insight decides whether you can tell if somebody is lying." Why go through all the circumlocution of "determine the true intentions..."

Maybe, just maybe it's because it's not intended as "lie detection".

Here's an example: you're talking to your mechanic, who tells you that your rotors are out of true by 3mm, but that there's not enough material left to resurface them so they'll have to be replaced, and it'll take about 5 hours to do all four of them, and with parts and labor that's going to be $1,300.

You succeed at your Insight roll and the DM tells you that he's hoping to make a lot of money off of you. That's his "true intention".

Is he actually lying? You don't know (not unless you succeed at an Arcana check involving brake rotors). And you certainly don't know (as [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] says) if any one particular statement is a lie (the 3mm, whether or not they can be resurfaced, how long that should take, etc.). Just that you're probably not getting a good deal from this guy.

So, the players are nicely kept in their place.

Wow. Just...wow.

I'll file that one under "complete and utter absence of comprehension."

Hussar · Apr 1, 2019

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]- yup. That's precisely what I'm talking about. If I use magic, then I don't have to worry about the whole "Dm interpretation" thing. A simple Zone of Truth and poof, it works. To me, the fact that the skill specifically mentions "searching out a lie", and then the DM plays silly buggers semantic games, I'm pretty much checking out of the game. No thanks. I have no interest in playing a game where we have to define the word "the".

And, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], this is why I see it as a tension between the control of the table between DM and players. It ALWAYS comes down to this. Every single time. The table you or I find comfortable with will move that bar between the DM and the players to wherever we feel most happy. But, that tension is always there. It's a mistake to think that it isn't.

Players and DM's have the same role - to create a table and a game that is fun for everyone. Full stop. That is the only role anyone has at the table. All that's left after that is deciding the details.

Imaculata · Apr 1, 2019

Hussar said:
Fair 'nuff I suppose.

I guess, I imagined posts like ones from you, or Immaculata or a few others talking about how you are following the rules of 5e in your play style, but, somehow allowing the player to know the true intentions of the NPC by using Insight isn't possible.

I think that if Insight was a lie detector, it would literally say so in the rules. Instead, as you quoted so diligently, it says it can be used to find out the true intentions of an NPC. To me, that is something other than a lie detector.

iserith · Apr 1, 2019

Hussar said:
And, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], this is why I see it as a tension between the control of the table between DM and players. It ALWAYS comes down to this. Every single time. The table you or I find comfortable with will move that bar between the DM and the players to wherever we feel most happy. But, that tension is always there. It's a mistake to think that it isn't.

Players and DM's have the same role - to create a table and a game that is fun for everyone. Full stop. That is the only role anyone has at the table. All that's left after that is deciding the details.

I see no tension. Everyone has the same goal, but different roles and responsibilities to perform in pursuit of that goal. It's laid out in the rules very clearly.

Guest 6801328 · Apr 1, 2019

Imaculata said:
I think that if Insight was a lie detector, it would literally say so in the rules. Instead, as you quoted so diligently, it says it can be used to find out the true intentions of an NPC. To me, that is something other than a lie detector.

I can't for the life of me understand how somebody would be unable to see the difference. (Perhaps a failed Insight check?)

There's also this: if Insight literally works as a lie detector, it would be the only "skill" that represents something that doesn't exist IRL.

Guest 6801328 · Apr 1, 2019

iserith said:
I see no tension. Everyone has the same goal, but different roles and responsibilities to perform in pursuit of that goal. It's laid out in the rules very clearly.

I do understand Hussar's point of view, in the sense that if you believe Insight is a lie detector, then not allowing it to function that way, with a single roll, is akin to saying, "Yeah, sorry, your attack roll just means that you're in a good position to attack, it doesn't mean you actually hit him."

It's the underlying premise that is wrong. (And if the rules actually said "allows you to detect lies" then it would be time for a houserule.)

iserith · Apr 1, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
I do understand Hussar's point of view, in the sense that if you believe Insight is a lie detector, then not allowing it to function that way, with a single roll, is akin to saying, "Yeah, sorry, your attack roll just means that you're in a good position to attack, it doesn't mean you actually hit him."

It's the underlying premise that is wrong. (And if the rules actually said "allows you to detect lies" then it would be time for a houserule.)

Hussar's words in his last post seem to indicate a deeper misunderstanding with regard to the DM-player relationship than how the DM interprets the Insight skill proficiency.

I will note, for the record, that Insight reads: "...you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie..." So I would say it's fairly used as a way to resolve tasks to detect the truthfulness of an NPC, but how precise it is will depend on the player's approach to the goal and the DM's interpretation of the rule relative to the situation.

But again, if the players are only ever trying to suss out lies from NPCs, then I think that's a sign the DM needs to get better at presenting social interaction challenges and maybe stop having the NPCs lie all the time. Having lies be the only obstacle in a social interaction challenge is like having pit traps be the only obstacle in an exploration challenge - you can do better!