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

Elfcrusher said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wait, D&D has to be realistic now? Did I suddenly gain a HP number I don't know about?

While I may or may not run my game quite like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], it's his table and his ruling. I'd be fine with his interpretation. As far as tension between player and DM ... again not sure I'd state it exactly that way but I don't see anything where he's advocating an adversarial relationship.

But I agree to the gist. The players are in control of their PCs and if they want to do a take an action represented by a skill check, in general they can. If they ask to shoot an arrow at the moon, I'll point out that their PC knows they can't hit the moon. If they insist on rolling anyway (or just rolled first) I'll simply point out that it does nothing.

Different strokes for different folks. Different styles for different games.

P.S. Human lie detectors may not exist in real life, but they are a pretty common trope in fiction.

Oofta said:

P.S. Human lie detectors may not exist in real life, but they are a pretty common trope in fiction.

Click to expand...

Human lie "indicators" do exist in real life. You just have to have the experience to build up the statistical probability and make a call as to whether you think a person is lying or not.

Its not perfect, but can work to build a bigger picture. And by itself does not convict anyone.

But most of us have had a friend that can't lie to save themselves, which is as an example of being able to read such indicators.

What we do with the decision we make is up to us, much like it would be up to our character after a skill roll.

Oofta said:

Wait, D&D has to be realistic now? Did I suddenly gain a HP number I don't know about?

Click to expand...

Utter logic failure.

I noted a pattern that all the skills (except one, if Hussar is right) represent normal things that people can do in real life. I said nothing about the entire rest of the game.

Not sure if you are being disingenuous or don't understand the difference...?

While I may or may not run my game quite like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], it's his table and his ruling. I'd be fine with his interpretation. As far as tension between player and DM ... again not sure I'd state it exactly that way but I don't see anything where he's advocating an adversarial relationship.

But I agree to the gist. The players are in control of their PCs and if they want to do a take an action represented by a skill check, in general they can. If they ask to shoot an arrow at the moon, I'll point out that their PC knows they can't hit the moon. If they insist on rolling anyway (or just rolled first) I'll simply point out that it does nothing.

Different strokes for different folks. Different styles for different games.

Click to expand...

I think you (and Hussar) are making up/exaggerating differences here.

I wouldn't tell a player he can't shoot an arrow at the moon, nor would I tell him he can't make a dice roll. However, I might ignore the dice roll, even if he got a nat 20.

The same with lie detection. If he asks "can I tell if he's lying" I might say, "I dunno...what do you do?" If he then says, "I roll Insight!"...and rolls a natural 20...I might again ignore the result.

How are those two examples any different? Is it because you think detecting a lie is always easier than shooting an arrow at the moon?

Now, after playing together for a while, this player might learn that there's no point to saying, "I use skill X!" and rolling dice, and instead just describing what he/she does, and rolling dice when the DM calls for it.

P.S. Human lie detectors may not exist in real life, but they are a pretty common trope in fiction.

Click to expand...

So are Wuxia acrobatics. So does a successful Acrobatics check mean you can run up walls and fly through the air, regardless of what the DM says?

Bawylie said:

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.

Click to expand...

My general way of managing the rules varies.

If you ask specific detail of specific elements such as does magic misdile cause one concentration check or three and does thunderwave knock you prone and msny other cases you see sage asked about, i go to the text of the rules and that is what Sage does often.

But when it comes to "can you do this..." questions especially for the broad scope of intentionally broad an vague left-for-gm-define-on-fly, i get a lot less worried with the strict language and more concerned with the basics of the resolution system.

Is this possible? Is it not automatic? If both are yes, what traits are best to represent the check?

Obviously, there is more to it, but those basics cover the gist.

So when i see multiple folks partly quoting insight skill descritions, often cutting out the specific part about "searching out a lie" to convolute a non-lie detector feature for insight... It is amusing and would likely drive me from a table fast. After all, if they only allow tasks explicitly listed in skills to be tried with ability checks, thats a sure tell.

I mean, for me, i have to wonder what "searching out a lie" means in their games? Is it literally a search check, like,looking under the drawer for a note saying "bob is not telling the truth"?

Or are they saying their is no character skill that applies when trying to see if someone seems truthful? All characters equally goid or bad at that?

If there is a check, but its not insight, what is the relevant trait? Hey, is this a yse for Medicine skill?

Can you only get the intention to decieve for future statements, not current ones, letting insight clue you in if he is planning to lie to you tomortow but not that he is doing it right now?

Course for some, it might depend on how much of which crime tv drama episode the player mimics in his own statement to the GM. Did the GM most recently see the he-said-she-said SVU episode or the one where the detectives all stand outside the window saying "its obvious he is lying."?

But for me, my view is pretty simple, but it works for us, if the **character** is in discussion with another character the question of "do i see signs of deception?" is likely to get resolved using Charisma with deception/persuasion and Wisdom with Insight as the core factors in most cases. Sure there may be other factors and sure spells can help or just really dominate the question, Detect Thoughts seems bigger than Zone of Truth.

Ok, some of the above may be a little tongue-in-cheeky, but all in all at the end of the day, it is the end of the day. Or maybe its the beginning of the day and we were being lied to. Roll insight?

Elfcrusher said:

Utter logic failure.

I noted a pattern that all the skills (except one, if Hussar is right) represent normal things that people can do in real life. I said nothing about the entire rest of the game.

Not sure if you are being disingenuous or don't understand the difference...?



I think you (and Hussar) are making up/exaggerating differences here.

I wouldn't tell a player he can't shoot an arrow at the moon, nor would I tell him he can't make a dice roll. However, I might ignore the dice roll, even if he got a nat 20.

The same with lie detection. If he asks "can I tell if he's lying" I might say, "I dunno...what do you do?" If he then says, "I roll Insight!"...and rolls a natural 20...I might again ignore the result.

How are those two examples any different? Is it because you think detecting a lie is always easier than shooting an arrow at the moon?

Now, after playing together for a while, this player might learn that there's no point to saying, "I use skill X!" and rolling dice, and instead just describing what he/she does, and rolling dice when the DM calls for it.



So are Wuxia acrobatics. So does a successful Acrobatics check mean you can run up walls and fly through the air, regardless of what the DM says?

Click to expand...

We've had this argument for a couple dozen pages now. I don't care if someone says "I use skill X" as long as they are communicating their intent. You, apparently, do. It's a stylistic preference, and I still don't understand why you can't just accept we run the game ever-so-slightly differently.

As far as detecting lies, what does "determine the true intent of someone lying" even mean? A logical interpretation is that their true intent is to deceive you. Someone trying to deceive you is lying.

Now I generally phrase my response as "they seem to be telling the truth" or "It doesn't seem like their being completely honest" but that's just me.

As far as human lie detector, I'm not taking a stand one way or another on whether they exist in real life. They exist in fiction so I have no problem with them in D&D if that's how someone wants to handle it.

P.S. Chill. The HP thing was a joke. You know ... ha ha? Friendly conversation not going into attack mode because of a difference of opinion?

Two sessions ago the characters with Insight (I used the passive for ease and speed) were informed that the individual they were conversing with seemed to be hiding something by the way he answered their questions and because he looked "uncomfortable" in the conversation, shifting often.
1 or 2 of them took the direct approach and attempted to push the individual into revealing all he knew as that was in his and his people's best interests. They failed their rolls respectively, forcing him to go onto the defensive and insist that he had told them everything he knew. A 3rd character, asked if he could have a moment alone with the individual and used his Insight (again passive) - I informed him that the individual was sincere but that his responses were odd, indicating perhaps some inner conflict.

Through general roleplaying conversation and with a tempered approach, the PC was able to coax out of the individual the entire story. No diplomacy check was required. My players seemed to enjoy that.

I find that I have relied on passive Insight more so than other checks and a new player in another group pointed it out to me as he was concerned about the relevance of his Insight skill. That is probably a failing on my part and something I need to work on. I had not realised I had been doing that subconsciously.

Oofta said:

P.S. Chill. The HP thing was a joke. You know ... ha ha? Friendly conversation not going into attack mode because of a difference of opinion?

Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. It can be hard to infer tone in forum posts. Caustic/snarky response retracted.

Back on topic, let's compare/contrast with Investigation for a moment.

Let's say that the PCs are trying to solve a mystery, and in one of the locations the DM has set up there is a document stuck on the bottom side of a drawer.

@Hussar's approach, taken to an extreme, wouldn't even require the PCs to leave the tavern. It might go something like this:
DM: "Ok, what do you do?"
Player: "I make an Investigation check...24!"
DM: "Ok, you go across town and search an office, and under a drawer you find a document..."

I suspect that's not how Hussar or you would play it. You would require the PCs to actually go to the office first, and then maybe roll Investigation. But if you do I might use Hussar's argument: you are "keeping players in their place" by relying on "DM interpretation" and "not allowing them to use the skill as it's written." (Not because I believe in the argument, but to illustrate the fallacy.) It's the same thing Hussar is arguing, right? If they use the Investigation skill and are successful, it should mean they successfully investigated.

Here's the thing: it's perfectly valid to play that way. Especially if you think the investigation is the boring bit that you have to get through before combat and looting. (And, honestly, some adventures are so poorly written that I might be tempted to skip over the entire thing with a single Investigation roll.)

But even though it's valid, I think most of us believe this is abstracting the fiction too far. That the PCs have to at least have the initiative to go to the office. And also (this is important) the PCs know there's an office. Right? You don't just plop them in a city and wait for them to say, "I search every office in the city." The DM has, at some point, introduced the office.

Now let's look at the document taped under the drawer: @iserith's argument, taken to the extreme, would require a player to state: "I take out all the drawers and look at the bottoms." And I think Hussar is making some assumptions that iserith would play it that way. I suspect, though, that iserith would not require the players to state that action...unless he had provided some sort of clue or signal that this is what they should do. Just like the existence of the office.

So What Good is Investigation?
Q: So if players are required to state, "I look under the drawer", what's Investigation used for?
A: To resolve uncertainty.

Here is an example of how I might use it: The players have to solve a "needle in a haystack" search with time pressure. I don't want to actually roleplay out searching the haystack, so I'll require a certain number of successes, and count the attempts. Bad (or unfortunate) stuff happens at certain increments. (Note that if there's no time pressure, I won't require a roll.)

I'll confess, I'll also use it when I just haven't prepared enough to plant good clues.

What about Insight?
I knew we'd have to get back to this eventually!

Well, it's just like Investigation. If you plant clues, and the players know what to ask, they shouldn't have to roll Insight. Why use some quasi-magic "detect lie" skill if the players have some piece of information which allows them to ask a question that will determine whether the NPC is truthful?

Otherwise, I might use it the way it's written, especially if I haven't prepared well: "He seems to be worried about what his boss is going to say about this." "There's some other reason he wants you to go to the ruins." "He just wants to get you out of his office." "He's having a bad day and taking it out on you." "He seems fixated on money."

Using Skills versus Declaring Actions
The reason I think the distinction is important is that if you start allowing players to just state, "I make an X check" you are essentially training them to stop thinking. Why put the clues together and realize you should look under the drawer when you know you can just make a skill check? And if the DM knows the players are just going to make a skill check, why put the work into creating the clues?

Summary
While Hussar's play style is legal & valid, I think it's leaving a lot of fun & interesting gaming on the table. It's qualitatively if not quantitatively the same as rolling Investigation from the tavern instead of first going to the office. Yes, it does take more DM prep to do it iserith's way, and if that work isn't done then, yeah, all this stuff is "just the boring part before you get to fight something."

Elfcrusher said:

<snip>

Now let's look at the document taped under the drawer: @iserith's argument, taken to the extreme, would require a player to state: "I take out all the drawers and look at the bottoms." And I think Hussar is making some assumptions that iserith would play it that way. I suspect, though, that iserith would not require the players to state that action...unless he had provided some sort of clue or signal that this is what they should do. Just like the existence of the office.

<snip>
Using Skills versus Declaring Actions
The reason I think the distinction is important is that if you start allowing players to just state, "I make an X check" you are essentially training them to stop thinking. Why put the clues together and realize you should look under the drawer when you know you can just make a skill check? And if the DM knows the players are just going to make a skill check, why put the work into creating the clues?

Summary
While Hussar's play style is legal & valid, I think it's leaving a lot of fun & interesting gaming on the table. It's qualitatively if not quantitatively the same as rolling Investigation from the tavern instead of first going to the office. Yes, it does take more DM prep to do it iserith's way, and if that work isn't done then, yeah, all this stuff is "just the boring part before you get to fight something."

Click to expand...

Ultimately, either approach can be bad when taken to extremes. Your summary points out that just asking for or allowing a broadly-defined roll short cuts some adventuring potential and characterization, but the extreme of the opposite approach is tedious pixel-bitching, shortcut by the DM pointing out (or telegraphing) which pixels to bitch (if the players are perceptive enough to catch the clue). Fortunately, I assume, most games are somewhere off the extreme ends of that spectrum.

Elfcrusher said:

Now let's look at the document taped under the drawer: [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s argument, taken to the extreme, would require a player to state: "I take out all the drawers and look at the bottoms." And I think Hussar is making some assumptions that iserith would play it that way. I suspect, though, that iserith would not require the players to state that action...unless he had provided some sort of clue or signal that this is what they should do. Just like the existence of the office.

Click to expand...

Not quite. As I understand it, the way this would be done would be, if the players simply stated they were searching the office, the DC would be X. If the players stated they were checking out the furniture in the office, the DC would be Y. If the players stated they were taking out the drawers and looking at the bottom, they would automatically succeed.

Is that a fair interpretation? [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]? Where X>Y, so, stating a general approach will succeed less often than a more specific approach and a very specific approach will always succeed, presuming it's the right approach?

At least, that's how I'm interpreting what they are saying. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

To me, it's not how I enjoy the game. For one, you see interpretations like [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION], where they look at the rules and interpret things a very different way than I would (like when the skill specifically calls out being able to discern lies but the DM says, nope, that's not what it says, I'm going to get frustrated), which lead to, IMO, artificially inflating difficulty in the name of "challenging" the players.

And, funnily enough, IME, these "interpretations" always go against the players. The players can never jump more than is "realistic", the players never can do something that the DM thinks is unrealistic. And, it's the DM's sense of realism that is the bar that is set. It's not something I enjoy. You have a character who, for some reason, has a super set of jumping skills, and scores a 25 or 30 on a jump score - that's a legendary level of success. So, why not wuxia style jumping?

Hussar said:

Not quite. As I understand it, the way this would be done would be, if the players simply stated they were searching the office, the DC would be X. If the players stated they were checking out the furniture in the office, the DC would be Y. If the players stated they were taking out the drawers and looking at the bottom, they would automatically succeed.

Is that a fair interpretation? @iserith? Where X>Y, so, stating a general approach will succeed less often than a more specific approach and a very specific approach will always succeed, presuming it's the right approach?

Click to expand...

The rules lay out a standard of reasonable specificity to have a chance at success, but specificity is not necessarily a requirement for outright success or a change in the DC in all cases.

I will add that you will never find me arguing a position in D&D by comparing it to reality or realism. I want to be clear on that point so that you don't conflate my position with others.