Insight/Sense Motive, Detect Lie, and "Genre-Savvy Villain Sense"

[Quickleaf]

I like the way you guys approach it [MENTION=6694112]Kinak[/MENTION] and [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] - make a whole mess of lies coming from multiple NPCs, and let the players figure out which ones are incriminating and which ones are irrelevant to their investigation. Very nice

 

[Argyle King]

A savvy enough villain will realize that the best way to lie is by telling the truth. For example, there's no reason why a villain in a fantasy game wouldn't/couldn't set up a front much like criminal organizations do in our world.


Beyond that, I think other posters have already covered some of what I said. Depending on the social status of the villain, it may be against social conventions or circumstances to approach certain topics or publicly call out a lie. Also, depending on how well you succeed, you might be aware that the subject is lying or uncomfortable about a topic, but not necessarily what they are lying or uncomfortable about.


I'll also say that I'm normally an advocate of making rolls in the open. However, I've recently started to favor the idea of making perception and similar rolls in secret. Though, I feel I'm able to do that with my group because they're aware that I don't fudge; as such, there's no fear that I'll push someone to fail if they didn't. The main reason I favor it is because I dislike the idea of players seeing they rolled terrible on a perception check and assuming they should roll again. On the other hand, the occasional call for a check when there really isn't anything to perceive can help with that.

 

[Campbell]

In a 4e game I'd just roll against Passive Insight and if a player felt the need they could call for a roll with a pointed question, but I'd limit it to a single roll until fictional positioning changed.

 

[Brock Landers]

Lately I feel that skills such as Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate, Sense Motive, etc, hinder more than help, not too hot on Perception either.

I have still had fun using them, but they always seem a bit forced.

 

[Quickleaf]

Lately I feel that skills such as Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate, Sense Motive, etc, hinder more than help, not to hot on Perception either.

I have still had fun using them, but they always seem a bit forced.

You know, I kind of agree. And for knowledge skills too.

It's not that rules to answer the question "what do I observe / know?" are bad per se, rather I think they need a very different framework than they've been given in D&D (any edition). For example, Rich Burlew did a rewrite of Diplomacy that weighted the PC's argument & circumstances more than the d20 die roll. IOW, you had to at less give everyone a gist of your role-play, and being clever or convincing had mechanical benefits.

I wonder if something similar could be done with Insight (and possibly Perception)...

Then again, I tend to like the old school style where skills are secondary to player ingenuity.

 

[DMZ2112]

I'll also say that I'm normally an advocate of making rolls in the open. However, I've recently started to favor the idea of making perception and similar rolls in secret.

I'm surprised this didn't come up immediately in this thread. Why give players metagame knowledge they don't need? You wouldn't explain the plot of your campaign to your players ahead of time and then ask them not to act on the information; why inform them that their attempt to read an NPC has succeeded or failed?

Any test that relies on player intuition should be made behind the screen. Stealth, diplomacy, trap disarmament, sensing motives -- in every case, the character is only as successful as the player believes them to be.

In general, I try to have a set of outcomes for every blind skill check:

Abject failure: a roll this poor, and the PC is usually aware they've bollocksed things up. No harm in telling them. Also includes the consequences of a substantial failure, below.

Substantial failure: the PC has done badly enough to actually warrant a negative outcome, not just failing to achieve their goal. Depending on the severity of this outcome, it may eventually inform the PC of their failure, but that information should not be volunteered immediately.

Slight failure: the PC has failed to achieve their stated objective but there are no consequences beyond that failure. They are unaware they have failed.

Slight success: the PC has succeeded at their stated objective but the certainty of that success is a mystery. The decision to trust in their success is their own.

Substantial success: the PC has succeeded at their stated objective and earns some additional reward. This reward may suggest to them that they have succeeded, but the result of the roll should still remain a secret.

Absolute success: on a roll this good, the PC has succeeded and they know it. Also includes the results of a substantial success, above.

My personal favorite way to play this is the substantial failure that looks like a substantial success until it turns out that their reward isn't a reward at all.

And if you don't like fudging, there's no need to do so -- a successful check is always a successful check, but you can privately consider the level of success according to your own metrics.

Though, I feel I'm able to do that with my group because they're aware that I don't fudge; as such, there's no fear that I'll push someone to fail if they didn't.

What would they do if you did fudge? Take their character sheets and go home? String you up by your toes? Cry about it?

Fft. Players.

 

[Brock Landers]

You know, I kind of agree. And for knowledge skills too.

It's not that rules to answer the question "what do I observe / know?" are bad per se, rather I think they need a very different framework than they've been given in D&D (any edition). For example, Rich Burlew did a rewrite of Diplomacy that weighted the PC's argument & circumstances more than the d20 die roll. IOW, you had to at less give everyone a gist of your role-play, and being clever or convincing had mechanical benefits.

I wonder if something similar could be done with Insight (and possibly Perception)...

Then again, I tend to like the old school style where skills are secondary to player ingenuity.

I agree with all of that, and a problem with Perception is calling for a Perception check, then the players are instantly tipped off, can defeat the purpose, of course a DM can make all Perception checks, but that can get messy, and the players are like "...what the hell's going on over there...?", or players announcing they are making one (that can get dicey).

My next campaign will start out sans Skills, at least at first, see how it goes

 

[Umbran]

For example, Rich Burlew did a rewrite of Diplomacy that weighted the PC's argument & circumstances more than the d20 die roll.

Which is fine, except for the old, "the character is better/worse at this than the player," issue and the "players play the GM, rather than the rules" issue.

Which, for you, may not be an issue. The real problem being that it is difficult to create a ruleset that covers both playstyle cases.

 

[Brock Landers]

Which is fine, except for the old, "the character is better/worse at this than the player," issue and the "players play the GM, rather than the rules" issue.

Which, for you, may not be an issue. The real problem being that it is difficult to create a ruleset that covers both playstyle cases.

And it seems to be insurmountable after all these years, just will not quite click.

 

[Quickleaf]

Which is fine, except for the old, "the character is better/worse at this than the player," issue and the "players play the GM, rather than the rules" issue.

Which, for you, may not be an issue. The real problem being that it is difficult to create a ruleset that covers both playstyle cases.

And it seems to be insurmountable after all these years, just will not quite click.

First off, I agree that it is very difficult to bridge those two playstyles in the same rules. My thinking tends to be either do the very difficult or provide 2 rules options in the core rules.

Second, I think Rich Burlew's Diplomacy write up falls in between these two playstyles; in other words that it does a good job of achieving a kind of balance.

To sum up the rules for those unfamiliar:

In 3rd Edition, Diplomacy is defined as "Making people like you." I want to change that definition, for I think it lacks depth and is poorly understood. In my new system, Diplomacy will be defined as, "Getting people to accept a deal you propose to them." The idea is that anything you need to ask another person can be phrased in the form of a trade-even if you are offering "nothing" on one end of that trade, or something very abstract.

Burlew then designs the Diplomacy skill around two sliding scales of modifiers: Your relationship with someone and the quality of the deal you're offering them.

The original article is here: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html

Maybe others disagree, but I always thought this was a great fix, particularly because it required both players and DMs to think about risk vs reward & what an NPC really wants. So the system begets negotiation-minded thinking.