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

[Charlaquin]

Sorry about that. I guess I keep thinking there's a simple answer, and there's not.

No worries I get the frustration of wanting to understand someone else’s perspective and just not being able to. I try to explain myself as best I can when prompted to do so, but there seems to be some fundamental disconnect that is preventing mutual understanding. It sucks, but experience so far has only shown me that this topic leads to fighting.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

This is yet another reason why using a skill to "detect" truth or lies is a terrible idea.

Agreed, which is why Wisdom\Insight is about intentions, not truth. A WIS roll won't tell you if what the NPC says is the truth or not, but it might tell you if the NPC believes it is the truth.

"With your Wisdom, you see that the NPC is sweating slightly, and his eyes keep darting off to the side every time you ask him a question. Looks dodgy."

"With your Wisdom, you see that the NPC is maintaining eye contact with you and not hesitating to answer your questions. You are confident that she is not decieving you."

 

[Hussar]

“Bad” suggests a value judgment that I’m not making. So I decline to defend a position I haven’t taken.

My choice is DM option 4. “Hold up with the dice for a second. Why are you making an athletics check? You can just climb without a check, at half your movement rate. Asking to make the check is essentially asking for the opportunity to fail. Would you like to fail here?”
/snip

If an action can’t succeed, I don’t need a check. If an action can’t fail, I don’t need a check. If an action can be repeated over and over until it eventually works, I don’t need a check. Why would you want one in any of these cases?

Just as a point. There is no autofail of skill checks in D&D and never has been. Let me repeat that. There is, and never has been, any autofail roll for skill checks in D&D. I notice a lot of DM's in various editions don't realize that. "A one always fails" right? No. Not on skill checks. So, if I can climb without a check, then I can climb with a check and there is still no chance of failure.

As to why would I want a check in these cases - well, until I attempt the action, I cannot know any of these things can I? So, to me, it's just a skill check. Nothing changes if I roll the check. So, what's the problem?

 

[Bawylie]

Just as a point. There is no autofail of skill checks in D&D and never has been. Let me repeat that. There is, and never has been, any autofail roll for skill checks in D&D. I notice a lot of DM's in various editions don't realize that. "A one always fails" right? No. Not on skill checks. So, if I can climb without a check, then I can climb with a check and there is still no chance of failure.

As to why would I want a check in these cases - well, until I attempt the action, I cannot know any of these things can I? So, to me, it's just a skill check. Nothing changes if I roll the check. So, what's the problem?

I hear you. Once I ask for a roll, I don’t count a result of 1 as an automatic fail.

But there are things that cannot succeed on their own merit regardless of a result of the die roll. Just as there are no automatic failures, there are no automatic successes as a result of a check.

But before we ask for a check, we determine whether or not a proposed action is possible, or if it can’t possibly fail. Let me give you an example - no matter how hard a character tries, they can’t seduce a stone. They may put on their finest clothes, deliver their very best pickup line, and put on enough charm to make Aphrodite blush, but the stone will never be into it. So we don’t need a check of any kind.

Once we accept there are some actions that don’t need checks because they cannot possibly succeed, we acknowledge also that there are some that cannot possibly fail. Very little will prevent a character from opening an unlocked, unguarded, unwarded door.

You can jump an inch without a roll. But you’ll never jump to the moon no matter what you roll.

Naturally those are absurdities to illustrate the point. I think there’s no real debate at these extremes. “You can’t jump to the moon or seduce a stone” isn’t controversial. But there are likewise other things that are more reasonable but still can’t succeed. No matter how thoroughly you search my sofa, you won’t find any coins (I already got them). No matter how hard you look for a trap that isn’t there, you cannot find it. And nobody will ask for a dexterity check for tying your shoes. Nor would anyone reasonably ask for a strength check to climb a knotted rope down 10 feet.

There’s no auto-fail for skill checks. But there’s no entitlement to one either. That’s a judgment call, and therefore belongs to the DM.

 

[billd91]

I was an investigator for 12 years and now I supervise a team of investigators. Civil/insurance fraud, generally, sometimes criminal. Our ability to “detect” lies is no better or more reliable than a coin toss. The very best of us are right 55% of the time.

We know when people are lying after we compare statements given to other records and witness accounts. I’ve never once used “sweat on the upper lip” or “touching their face” or “not making eye contact” to determine the veracity of anything.

I have seen anger, nervousness, calmness, and other demeanors in the course of interviews and trials. I have seen people stare wide-eyed at their lawyer after every question, before answering, hoping for some direction. What does that tell you? I’ve seen people get enraged over questions about their dog’s injuries and not care at all if they’re accused of lying about their own. What does that tell you? I’ve seen people sincerely testify to things that are outright wrong or insane - but they believe them to be true. What does that tell you?

In my opinion, insight isn’t a lie detector. In my games, I try to use it as an opportunity to fill-in-the-blank or perhaps add two-and-two. A flash of insight might be something like “NPC is adamant in their position, animated and louder than a conversation between two people should be. It’s almost performative. But who is the intended audience?” Or maybe “They show clear signs of inebriation, the exaggerated signs of inebriation you see when sober people are mimicking drunkenness.”
Or “they’re uninterested/bored with the conversation.”

Anyway, just my 2 cents on it. Insight gives something, sometimes something useful, sometimes something interesting, but it’s on you to do something with it. It doesn’t detect lies or truth. Unless you want it to, then heck go wild. But even those of us whose job it is to determine lies and truth don’t get it from cold-reading.

Thanks for injecting your personal experience... but I think it's fair for the game to go for genre over reality and let a good insight-type skill do a little more heavy lifting than you see in the reality you experience.

But I do agree with much of your approach to the skill. I also take it less as a direct lie detector and more as a person-reading skill, whether they're evasive, hiding something, giving off a tell, being sincere, or anything else.

 

[Bawylie]

Thanks for injecting your personal experience... but I think it's fair for the game to go for genre over reality and let a good insight-type skill do a little more heavy lifting than you see in the reality you experience.

But I do agree with much of your approach to the skill. I also take it less as a direct lie detector and more as a person-reading skill, whether they're evasive, hiding something, giving off a tell, being sincere, or anything else.

Fair enough.

The text of the game:
“Insight. 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.”

My reading is definitely not the only interpretation. There is a reading of that text that does enable truth/lie detection and there probably ought to be space enough for genre considerations.

 

[Hussar]

/snip for examples that really don't speak to the issue

There’s no auto-fail for skill checks. But there’s no entitlement to one either. That’s a judgment call, and therefore belongs to the DM.

Firstly, since we both agree that there are no auto succeeds or auto fails, what is changed by a player rolling before asking? If the task was impossible, it remains impossible. If the task was very easy, it remains very easy. Rolling beforehand changes nothing.

However, the notion that a player is not "entitled" to a skill check is something I strongly disagree with.

Earlier examples from [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] regarding his player would cause me, as a player to do nothing but grind my teeth. You don't ask me to describe my actions before I attack and I can certainly roll an attack roll without your permission, nor do you ask me to describe my actions before casting a spell. So, what's wrong with, "I'm trained in investigation - I check for traps"? The idea that somehow that makes me an "entitled" player is something I strongly object to.

And, as a DM, I have zero interest in gate keeping player skill checks. They can roll any time they want. Frankly I prefer it that way.

To me the fact that [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION]'s very polite requests for why doing it your way helps the game were completely stonewalled and people immediately got defensive demonstrates that perhaps folks are a bit more controlling while sitting in the DM's chair than they think they are.

 

[Bawylie]

Firstly, since we both agree that there are no auto succeeds or auto fails, what is changed by a player rolling before asking? If the task was impossible, it remains impossible. If the task was very easy, it remains very easy. Rolling beforehand changes nothing.

However, the notion that a player is not "entitled" to a skill check is something I strongly disagree with.

Earlier examples from [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] regarding his player would cause me, as a player to do nothing but grind my teeth. You don't ask me to describe my actions before I attack and I can certainly roll an attack roll without your permission, nor do you ask me to describe my actions before casting a spell. So, what's wrong with, "I'm trained in investigation - I check for traps"? The idea that somehow that makes me an "entitled" player is something I strongly object to.

And, as a DM, I have zero interest in gate keeping player skill checks. They can roll any time they want. Frankly I prefer it that way.

To me the fact that [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION]'s very polite requests for why doing it your way helps the game were completely stonewalled and people immediately got defensive demonstrates that perhaps folks are a bit more controlling while sitting in the DM's chair than they think they are.

I think that argument relies on reading my intent. As for whether anyone else feels defensive, I couldn’t say.

As for attacks, I do ask that you give a reasonable statement regarding your intent. You’ll need to have specified, at minimum, which target. “I attack the nearest goblin with my sword” is perfectly sufficient. As we’ve discussed before. And there are situations in which no attack roll would be required.

Same for casting a spell. I do need to know what spell you’re casting and presumably on whom.

Maybe I don’t understand your point though: how are you casting spells or attacking without saying what you’re doing? Is it like, “16 fire damage to these guys - unless they make saves”? And “that dude takes 4 slashing”?

There’s nothing wrong with “I’m trained in investigation - I check for traps.” That states a clear goal “I want to find traps.” I merely want to know HOW you go about checking, as well. That way I know if you automatically find it, stumble across it, stumble across it and set it off, or don’t find it at all because the way you’re doing it can’t work (looking for an invisible trap, for example).

I don’t want a die roll before I set a DC. Knowing the result of your roll before I decide how hard of a task it is might very well seem unfair. Particularly if I decide it’s one higher than what you rolled. But if I tell you what the DC is first, you don’t need to question whether I’ve decided fairly and you can opt out. “Hang on, i didn’t know that would be that difficult and I wouldn’t take that kind of risk.” Fair enough.

Or likewise maybe I’ve misunderstood what you intended. Clarifying before the roll benefits the player and encourages intelligent decisions and calculated risks.

Can’t do that after a roll though. What’s done is done.

 

[Charlaquin]

Earlier examples from @Charlaquin regarding his player would cause me, as a player to do nothing but grind my teeth.

That’s fine. I’m open to the possibility that not everyone’s preferred play style will mesh with mine. If you don’t like the way I run the game, no one will force you to play at my table.

Also, it’d be “regarding her player.” No big deal, but just so we’re clear.

You don't ask me to describe my actions before I attack and I can certainly roll an attack roll without your permission, nor do you ask me to describe my actions before casting a spell.

I don’t ask you to describe your search for traps either. I ask you to state a goal and an approach. An attack in combat has that built in - your goal is to kill your target, and your approach is to use your weapon. That much is pretty easy and uncontroversial to infer. However, in order to properly adjudicate the action, I do need you to tell me what target you are attacking and with what weapon. Likewise, it is pretty easy and uncontrovetsial to infer that when you say “I check for traps,” your goal is to discern whether or not trap are present. It is not so easy or uncontroversial to infer what you are doing to make that determination. Are you just looking with your eyes? Are you touching anything? Are you using your hands or a tool? I don’t need specific details, but I do need to know generally where you are searching and how you are searching it, just like I don’t need to know specific details of your attack, but I do need to know generally what you are attacking and with what weapon or spell.

So, what's wrong with, "I'm trained in investigation - I check for traps"?

Knowing that you are trained in investigation does not help me understand what your character is doing to investigate, which I need to know in order to determine the results. Just as knowing that you are proficient with martial weapons doesn’t help me know what weapon you are attacking with.

The idea that somehow that makes me an "entitled" player is something I strongly object to.

I’m pretty sure that’s not what Bawylie was suggesting by saying “players are not entitled to a roll.” That sounds to me like the literal meaning of the word “entitled.” That is to say, I think he was saying “the rules don’t grant you the authority to decide when the success of your own character’s action should be determined by way of a dice roll,” not “you are an entitled person if you want to roll dice.”

And, as a DM, I have zero interest in gate keeping player skill checks. They can roll any time they want. Frankly I prefer it that way.

No one is gatekeeping skill checks. We’re just saying that it is the DM’s role to decide when the result of a character’s action requires a dice roll to determine its success or failure, nor the player’s. If you prefer to allow your players to decide that the results of their actions will be determined by way of a skill check whenever they want to, that’s fine. You do you.

To me the fact that @Oofta's very polite requests for why doing it your way helps the game were completely stonewalled and people immediately got defensive demonstrates that perhaps folks are a bit more controlling while sitting in the DM's chair than they think they are.

Who stonewalled Oofta? It looked to me like their respectful questions received respectful answers. After giving my own answer, I requested that we not let this thread devolve into another 100+ page argument about our preferred resolution methods, because I foresaw a post like yours coming soon.

No one is saying you’re DMing wrong if you let your players make checks whenever they want. What’s it to you that some of us don’t do that? You run your games the way you like, and I’ll run my games the way I like.

 

[Hussar]

Fair 'nuff I suppose. Probably reading too much into this anyway. It was meant as an off the cuff remark that I was surprised that DM's do this. Just something I'd never run across.