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

iserith said:

The DM describes the environment as including a bandit leader who declares they have 80 bandits waiting in the caves to strike down a nearby town. The fighter's player, suspecting this is a bluff, describes that he or she wants to search out a lie (goal) by gleaning clues from his body language, speech habits, and changers in mannerisms (approach). The fighter's player might roll a Wisdom (Insight) check, if the DM determines the outcome of the task is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. If the DM does decide an ability check is appropriate, he or she may assign a DC of his or her choosing or perhaps call for a contest using the bandit's Charisma (Deception).

If the fighter's player succeeds in that check, the DM may say that the bandit is being untruthful.

Click to expand...

The only thing I would change here is that instead of saying, "he is being untruthful," I would reveal the bandit's "true intention": he is hoping to convince the players to go away without a fight.

Elfcrusher said:

Oh, and for those who would rather roleplay lie detection than simply make it a roll: give the players a piece of information that the NPC wouldn't expect them to have. They can use that in conversation to find out if the NPC is lying. If they are struggling, a successful Insight check could result in, "You realize that the NPC doesn't know that you know X..."

To address Oofta's concern: no, you don't give them bits of info for every single NPC in the game, so they can find out if the innkeeper is lying. You save this for the NPC who's truth/insincerity is going to have impact on the story.

Click to expand...

You can also run social interaction challenges as the DMG suggests and give NPCs an ideal, bond, flaw, and agenda. If the PCs work to discover those characteristics, they might be used in context to show the NPC is lying about something.

Ovinomancer said:

That certainly seems like a problem you should work on.

Click to expand...

Actually I kind of agree with [MENTION=38016]Michael Silverbane[/MENTION]. It sure seems like a lot (not all) people who are now claiming "middle of the road" are most likely to have made statements like

If an NPC is telling the truth, they exhibit no signs that they are lying, therefore there is no uncertainty if a PC attempts to discern whether or not they are lying by observing their behavior.

Click to expand...

Which sounds pretty "one true way" to me. Maybe they aren't meant that way.

vs

In my game...

Click to expand...

Maybe people aren't as strict/absolutist as their postings make them sound. But I get tired of being accused of misrepresenting what people do when they won't give examples when asked.

In addition, telling someone they're not allowed to their opinion is just tacky.

Oofta said:

But I get tired of being accused of misrepresenting what people do when they won't give examples when asked.

Click to expand...

I suspect that's directed at me. I thought I had sprinkled several examples in my posts, but maybe you missed them.

Tell you what (if that was directed at me): give me some parameters, as specific as you like, using whatever skill you like, and I'll give a detailed example.

Oofta said:

Actually I kind of agree with [MENTION=38016]Michael Silverbane[/MENTION]. It sure seems like a lot (not all) people who are now claiming "middle of the road" are most likely to have made statements like



Which sounds pretty "one true way" to me. Maybe they aren't meant that way.

Click to expand...

That sounds like a problem you should work on.

vs


Maybe people aren't as strict/absolutist as their postings make them sound. But I get tired of being accused of misrepresenting what people do when they won't give examples when asked.

In addition, telling someone they're not allowed to their opinion is just tacky.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is shocking that people don't explicitly call out their opinion as their opinion every single time they post, especially in threads where asked opinions are asked for. I, sadly, expect your experience with this problem is rapidly coming to a middle.

Oofta said:

Actually I kind of agree with [MENTION=38016]Michael Silverbane[/MENTION]. It sure seems like a lot (not all) people who are now claiming "middle of the road" are most likely to have made statements like



Which sounds pretty "one true way" to me. Maybe they aren't meant that way.

vs


Maybe people aren't as strict/absolutist as their postings make them sound. But I get tired of being accused of misrepresenting what people do when they won't give examples when asked.

In addition, telling someone they're not allowed to their opinion is just tacky.

Click to expand...

I agree that telling someone they aren’t entitled to their opinion is tacky.

I understand that when someone disagrees with me, they’re not saying I’m not entitled to my opinion. They just think I’m wrong. Reasonable folks can disagree in good faith.

Elfcrusher said:

I suspect that's directed at me. I thought I had sprinkled several examples in my posts, but maybe you missed them.

Tell you what (if that was directed at me): give me some parameters, as specific as you like, using whatever skill you like, and I'll give a detailed example.

Click to expand...

Not entirely directed at you, but this has been a recurring issue.

Scenario 1:
The NPC is telling the truth. The player (for whatever reason) is suspicious.

How I'd handle it:
DM as NPC: "I don't know anything about the missing jewels"
Player: "I don't believe him. " Rolling dice "I get an 18 insight"
or: "I don't believe him, can I roll an insight?"
or: "I don't believe him, does he look like he's trying to be deceptive?"
DM: ask for an insight roll if they didn't already give one. DM rolls dice and ignores result responding "They seem to be telling the truth"

In this scenario I don't care how the player declares what they're trying to do. The intent is clear. If they roll high enough I may give them some additional info that the NPC is nervous about something but not necessarily lying. Low enough? Maybe they believe the NPC is lying. Depends on specifics.

Scenario 2:
The NPC is lying.

See above with appropriate results. I never say "they're lying" it would be "they don't seem to be telling the truth" or "they seem to be hiding something. Failed insight? "They seem to be telling the truth".

Scenario 3:
The door is trapped.

If the PCs have declared ahead of time they're being cautious I'll ask for an investigation to find the trap. In no way does that mean they grab the contact-poison covered door handle. I may ask for checks now and then even on untrapped doors, depends on the game and mood I'm trying to set.

If the PCs are moving at a normal pace, I'll probably use passive investigation possibly with an increased DC.

If the PCs are moving quickly (i.e. bravely retreating from the ancient red dragon they just pissed off), they probably won't get a check.

If the door is not trapped but they still want to investigate it for traps, I let them. The response will be "the door does not appear to be trapped".

Scenario 4:
Disarming a trap.

Most of the time I'll just call for a check. Occasionally I'll make it more difficult and ask for details because it requires multiple actions or something that's potentially risky from the perspective of the PC.

Actually, I wanted you to be even more specific. Like, what is the setup? What's the NPC lying about? Why? But, ok, you made it much easier than that. (If requiring more typing, with 4 scenarios...)

Oofta said:

Not entirely directed at you, but this has been a recurring issue.

Scenario 1:
The NPC is telling the truth. The player (for whatever reason) is suspicious.

How I'd handle it:
DM as NPC: "I don't know anything about the missing jewels"
Player: "I don't believe him. " Rolling dice "I get an 18 insight"
or: "I don't believe him, can I roll an insight?"
or: "I don't believe him, does he look like he's trying to be deceptive?"
DM: ask for an insight roll if they didn't already give one. DM rolls dice and ignores result responding "They seem to be telling the truth"

In this scenario I don't care how the player declares what they're trying to do. The intent is clear. If they roll high enough I may give them some additional info that the NPC is nervous about something but not necessarily lying. Low enough? Maybe they believe the NPC is lying. Depends on specifics.

Click to expand...

Scenario: they're talking to the estranged sister of an NPC they're trying to find, who claims not to have seen him in years.
Clue: The DM let the heroes find a letter she wrote to him only months ago.

NPC: "No, I haven't seen him in 11 years, ever since (fill in backstory)"
Player (using clue): "And you haven't tried to contact him in all this time?"
NPC: "Oh, I've tried to contact him, all right. Just a few months ago I sent a letter to an inn I know he used to frequent, hoping it would get to him. Never heard anything back."

The fact that she didn't try to hide the existence of the letter should be a strong hint she isn't lying. And now they have another clue, by asking her which inn she sent the letter to.

If the players get stuck, a successful Insight check might prod them with a clue to the clue. "You notice she hasn't said anything about trying to find him, just that she hasn't heard from him."

EDIT: And I'll add that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is entirely right: the other way you could do this is to generate bonds/flaws/ideals/theoneI'mforgetting and on successful Insight checks reveal those, and should provide hints as to the situation.

Scenario 2:
The NPC is lying.

See above with appropriate results. I never say "they're lying" it would be "they don't seem to be telling the truth" or "they seem to be hiding something. Failed insight? "They seem to be telling the truth".

Click to expand...

"Why would I try to contact that ungrateful wretch?"

(Again, Insight for a clue to a clue.)

Scenario 3:
The door is trapped.

If the PCs have declared ahead of time they're being cautious I'll ask for an investigation to find the trap. In no way does that mean they grab the contact-poison covered door handle. I may ask for checks now and then even on untrapped doors, depends on the game and mood I'm trying to set.

If the PCs are moving at a normal pace, I'll probably use passive investigation possibly with an increased DC.

If the PCs are moving quickly (i.e. bravely retreating from the ancient red dragon they just pissed off), they probably won't get a check.

If the door is not trapped but they still want to investigate it for traps, I let them. The response will be "the door does not appear to be trapped".

Click to expand...

Going with contact-poison handle on a door for the setup. I still don't know the overall scenario, but here are some hints that could have been dropped
- On an earlier, similar door, you let them notice the contact poison automatically
- There is a not-so-fresh corpse in front of the door, with a discoloured hand and froth coming out of its mouth. Looks like it died in agony.
If this is an important/significant door, where they are likely to be cautious, the hints could have come earlier:
- The players previously found a small "lab" table with a recipe for contact poison, and some ingredients, including something with a distinct smell (vinegar? ammonia? feces? purple worm slime?)
- At the door, if somebody says they want to inspect the door, let them catch a faint whiff of vinegar.

Scenario 4:
Disarming a trap.

Most of the time I'll just call for a check. Occasionally I'll make it more difficult and ask for details because it requires multiple actions or something that's potentially risky from the perspective of the PC.

Click to expand...

There's too much unsaid here for me, but here are some variants:
- If finding the trap was the challenge, then I'd let disarming be automatic if they propose anything remotely reasonable sounding. ("Can I wash the poison off?" "Sure.")
- If finding the trap is easy and disarming the trap was supposed to be the challenge, then I would have used a clue similar to the poison scenario.
- If there's time pressure...maybe they're being chased by something...then I'd use the roll, or multiple rolls, to determine how long it takes. Maybe combat would even start, and there's the rogue, still making an attempt on each turn (and wishing he had taken the Thief sub-class).
- I might even use a straight-up Thieves' Tools roll with some kind of consequences. "If you just try to avoid the scything blades you'll make a saving throw. If you disarm and succeed you succeed, but if you fail you'll have to make the same saving throw at disadvantage."

Again, the theme is trade-offs. If there's no trade-off, then why roll?

This is what I find boring:
Player: "I'll check to see if the door is trapped."
DM: "Roll Investigation."
Player: "17"
DM: "You find contact poison on the doorknob."
Player: "I'll try to disarm it."
DM: "Roll Thieves' Tools"
Player: "8"
DM: "You blow it. Make a save versus poison..."

Elfcrusher said:

Now, I realize some people don't like that. They want the platonic ideal of a sandbox, where every NPC is a roleplaying opportunity that may lead to adventure. I don't like to play in games like that, and I don't run games like that. Table time is too scarce, and from my experience it's usually one player who wants to engage in a deep conversation with every NPC while everybody else sits around and fiddles with D&D Beyond. Also, I have very little interest in tracking copper pieces and haggling over prices. Unless something is going to cost a significant chunk of a character's stash I tend to hand-wave prices: I don't make players account for every mug of ale and night in an inn. So making skill checks (sorry, iserith, I meant ability checks with skill proficiency modifiers) to haggle over prices just doesn't interest me.

Ok, so with that out of the way, let's assume we're talking with an NPC who plays a more active role in the story. Somebody who, depending on how the interaction with the players go, could affect the outcome. And that's the core of it for me: will this interaction affect the trajectory of the story in a meaningful way? If so, then the merchant's...let's say he's a merchant...the merchant's "true intentions" matter. The players might, during negotiations (which itself, in my game, is a signal that this NPC is relevant) over a price for something, glean that he:
.

Click to expand...

I think covers a huge bit of it.

Yeah, table time is precious, but my players get interested by some of the more obscure parts of the system sometimes. We've run afoul of the crafting system so many times because I have a cache of players who love exploring that system, despite how it does not work right per RAW (We've come up with a variety of HB options, but none quite right yet)

And so, sometimes they get interested in seeking out some random merchant, especially if I mention they are particularly quirky, and making it into a roleplaying moment. So I'm mentally prepared to have any encounter turn into a social encounter almost at the drop of a hat.

Sounds like your tables have a much more established SOP and they don't end up committing to things quite so randomly, so for you them looking up a crazy old woman to buy chicken blood from her (seriously, they were super-impressed about that chicken blood for some reason) is a rare occurrence, while for me it happens often enough I try and account for it in my SOP, such as it is.

Elfcrusher said:

Actually, I wanted you to be even more specific. Like, what is the setup? What's the NPC lying about? Why? But, ok, you made it much easier than that. (If requiring more typing, with 4 scenarios...)



Scenario: they're talking to the estranged sister of an NPC they're trying to find, who claims not to have seen him in years.
Clue: The DM let the heroes find a letter she wrote to him only months ago.

NPC: "No, I haven't seen him in 11 years, ever since (fill in backstory)"
Player (using clue): "And you haven't tried to contact him in all this time?"
NPC: "Oh, I've tried to contact him, all right. Just a few months ago I sent a letter to an inn I know he used to frequent, hoping it would get to him. Never heard anything back."

The fact that she didn't try to hide the existence of the letter should be a strong hint she isn't lying. And now they have another clue, by asking her which inn she sent the letter to.

If the players get stuck, a successful Insight check might prod them with a clue to the clue. "You notice she hasn't said anything about trying to find him, just that she hasn't heard from him."

EDIT: And I'll add that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is entirely right: the other way you could do this is to generate bonds/flaws/ideals/theoneI'mforgetting and on successful Insight checks reveal those, and should provide hints as to the situation.

Click to expand...

A key difference to our approaches is that what you know determines whether or not the players do an insight check. As far as the players are concerned the letter could have been a forgery. Or maybe she did write the letter but ensured it would never be delivered and she's just covering her tracks.

To be clear - I have back-and-forth conversations with NPCs all the time. But in this scenario you aren't resolving a contest so the players now know she's telling the truth, at least about the direct answers she's given.

So to me, the specific scenario doesn't matter. If the players think the PCs would suspect the NPC is lying, then the PCs suspect the NPC is lying. The logical result of that would be to try to determine if the NPC is lying: an insight check.

Elfcrusher said:

"Why would I try to contact that ungrateful wretch?"

(Again, Insight for a clue to a clue.)

Click to expand...

I could see doing that. I may even call for an insight check or use passive values.

Elfcrusher said:

Going with contact-poison handle on a door for the setup. I still don't know the overall scenario, but here are some hints that could have been dropped
- On an earlier, similar door, you let them notice the contact poison automatically
- There is a not-so-fresh corpse in front of the door, with a discoloured hand and froth coming out of its mouth. Looks like it died in agony.
If this is an important/significant door, where they are likely to be cautious, the hints could have come earlier:
- The players previously found a small "lab" table with a recipe for contact poison, and some ingredients, including something with a distinct smell (vinegar? ammonia? feces? purple worm slime?)
- At the door, if somebody says they want to inspect the door, let them catch a faint whiff of vinegar.



There's too much unsaid here for me, but here are some variants:
- If finding the trap was the challenge, then I'd let disarming be automatic if they propose anything remotely reasonable sounding. ("Can I wash the poison off?" "Sure.")
- If finding the trap is easy and disarming the trap was supposed to be the challenge, then I would have used a clue similar to the poison scenario.
- If there's time pressure...maybe they're being chased by something...then I'd use the roll, or multiple rolls, to determine how long it takes. Maybe combat would even start, and there's the rogue, still making an attempt on each turn (and wishing he had taken the Thief sub-class).
- I might even use a straight-up Thieves' Tools roll with some kind of consequences. "If you just try to avoid the scything blades you'll make a saving throw. If you disarm and succeed you succeed, but if you fail you'll have to make the same saving throw at disadvantage."

Again, the theme is trade-offs. If there's no trade-off, then why roll?

This is what I find boring:
Player: "I'll check to see if the door is trapped."
DM: "Roll Investigation."
Player: "17"
DM: "You find contact poison on the doorknob."
Player: "I'll try to disarm it."
DM: "Roll Thieves' Tools"
Player: "8"
DM: "You blow it. Make a save versus poison..."

Click to expand...

What you find boring I find expedient. Same as a fighter describing every single swing of the sword. Sometimes it's as simple as a roll of the dice, sometimes it's not.

So a specific scenario? Like the one I gave earlier. The PCs are searching the house of Baron Von Uppity-Up who they suspect is really The Black Snake. Mr Snake has a reputation of being paranoid, and is someone likely to booby-trap their house.

The group has no idea what specifically is trapped or how. If anything is trapped. What does that session look like in your game?