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

[Chaosmancer]

This is only partly true. While the DM can call for a contest of Charisma (Deception) and Wisdom (Insight) checks to resolve these sorts of tasks (when said tasks have uncertain outcomes and meaningful consequences for failure), a contest is not required by the rules. The DM can instead just set a DC.

This is like saying Perception isn't used to oppose Stealth because the DM can just set a flat DC.

Technically true, but talking beside the point instead of addressing it. When an opposed deception roll is used, it is default of Deception vs Insight.

What you're missing is that the DM decides if there's ambiguity in the result. If the DM simply decides that the lie (or any other insight) can't be detected, or that the way the player proposes to accomplish it would automatically fail, then there's no roll. Thus the absence of the roll should not be a signal to the player that the NPC is telling the truth.

Now, I think DMs should be very sparing with completely undetectable lies (maybe if it's a construct doing the lying or something), but the point is that just because a player proposes a course of action...or wants to "use a skill"...it doesn't entitle him/her to a roll. Which in some ways is the heart of this whole debate.

I think most players would realize the situation where Insight is impossible. Such as trying to Insight a recording or a letter.

But, to get to a question that might have an answer. If they tried, and there was no ambiguity because it is too easy. What do you tell them?

Do you tell them no roll is necessary and just leave it at that, or do you tell them that no roll is necessary because they can easily tell?

I've had times I've needed to tell players "No, the letter isn't lying to you" when they try and use Insight in a manner where it does not apply, but I let them know why there isn't a roll necessary, which means they either know it is impossible to tell or they succeed. And succeeding by realizing it is impossible is... kind of weird.

Full stop, right here. The player has stated an action with a goal and approach, the GM is now obligated to narrate the results of that action. If the GM decides there's no uncertainty, the GM still must narrate the outcome.

.

See, I think you stopped the conversation too late.

Player: "I don't believe him, I think he's hiding something."
DM: "Okay."
Player: "Umm...can I get a read on him? An insight check?"
DM: "No."
Player: "What do you mean?"
DM: "The players don't get to ask to do skill checks. They declare action and intent."

This would get me frustrated. It reads like a "power play" on the part of the DM. They want to force me to say things in a certain way

Ok...ehem...I'm at a keyboard. Here's my understanding of the "it's all about character skill" approach:

DM: "In front of you is a door, looks like oak with metal strap hinges, riveted on. There's a pull ring in the center."

Rogue: "Hmmm...we found that poison lab. I'm going to carefully inspect that pull ring to see if there's any foreign substance on it. I'll look from different angles, and maybe sniff the air. Oh, and I'll cut off a piece of that cultist cloak I found and carefully wipe the pull ring to see if anything comes off. I have proficiency in Poisoner's Kit so I should know how to do this safely."

DM: "Roll Investigation."

Rogue: "Hmm...11."

DM: "Nope, seems clean."

Rogue: "Ok, I'm going to pull the door open."

DM: "It has contact poison on it; roll a save versus Constitution."

Rogue: "What? I looked for contact poison!"

DM: "Yeah but the DC was 12; you just missed."

Rogue: "Wait a sec...it was only a 12 DC, but an 8th level rogue with Poisoner's Kit proficiency specifically looking for contact poison in the right place didn't find it?"

DM: "Not if you fail the roll. Maybe you looked on the wrong part of the pull ring."

I know this is sarcasm, and it is quite well done too, but it does lead me to a good point on DM presentation.

For an 8th level rogue with prof to get an 11... they had to roll low. Player knows it, I know it. So, while narrating the result I don't say "No you failed" I'd say something more like "You're tired of this dungeon, and while you put in a good show of looking you only really glance at the handle while thinking about the fat piles of loot in your future."

We relied on the dice, and the dice tell us the rogue under-performed. So I come up with the reason why they lapsed in that moment.


Now, I also wouldn't have gotten to that point, because they said "I wipe it with a cloth" and action no player of mine has ever thought of, and that would wipe the poison off onto the cloth. And, since this poison was potent enough to work even if the player is wearing gloves or gauntlets (yeah, contact poison handles actually would rarely work, because most people would be wearing leather gloves) then they get the check then. Or, they find the poison and no check is needed to know the handle had poison on it.

 

[iserith]

This is like saying Perception isn't used to oppose Stealth because the DM can just set a flat DC.

Technically true, but talking beside the point instead of addressing it. When an opposed deception roll is used, it is default of Deception vs Insight.

That's certainly true in my experience and it's likely the call I'll make, but the rules make no judgment on a "default" adjudication here. The most support that can be found for this ruling, to my knowledge, is a Deception vs. Insight example in the Multiple Ability Checks section of the DMG for when a task might not be repeated.

This is definitely a minor point on the surface, but I think it underscores that we shouldn't just assume the way we generally do things is what the rules say. It's a good meditation on scrutinizing our own assumptions, if nothing else, and of course if you prefer to change the rules or rule a particular way by default to suit the way you play, that's perfectly reasonable.

 

[Guest 6801328]

For an 8th level rogue with prof to get an 11... they had to roll low. Player knows it, I know it. So, while narrating the result I don't say "No you failed" I'd say something more like "You're tired of this dungeon, and while you put in a good show of looking you only really glance at the handle while thinking about the fat piles of loot in your future."

We relied on the dice, and the dice tell us the rogue under-performed. So I come up with the reason why they lapsed in that moment.

I find it ironic that the "goal and method" approach is derided as some kind of DM power trip, but I see this as taking over the poor guy's character and roleplaying for him. If I'm going to subject him to the whim of the dice, I'm at least going to give him the courtesy of letting him narrate his own failures.

I was DMing for my nephew, who was about 10 at the time (stop reading here if you've read this before...it's at least the 3rd time I've posted this story here) and he failed an Athletics check climbing up the wall of a mausoleum. His face fell...he was really disappointed. Then I asked him, "Why did you fall?" He stared blankly at me for a moment, then his face lit up and he said, "There was some wet moss on the stone, and I slipped on that."

A few minutes later he said, "That was actually really cool."

Later in the game he crit on a sneak attack (on a ghoul in a tunnel under the mausoleum...of course) and out of 6d6 he got (if I remember it correctly) 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 4. The ghoul exploded. Black blood everywhere. He said, "Ok, that was even cooler than the slipping on the moss thing." Later he eagerly, and graphically, recounted his exploit to his mom, my sister. ("Really, sis, this game is GREAT for developing minds.")

 

[Chaosmancer]

I find it ironic that the "goal and method" approach is derided as some kind of DM power trip, but I see this as taking over the poor guy's character and roleplaying for him. If I'm going to subject him to the whim of the dice, I'm at least going to give him the courtesy of letting him narrate his own failures.

I was DMing for my nephew, who was about 10 at the time (stop reading here if you've read this before...it's at least the 3rd time I've posted this story here) and he failed an Athletics check climbing up the wall of a mausoleum. His face fell...he was really disappointed. Then I asked him, "Why did you fall?" He stared blankly at me for a moment, then his face lit up and he said, "There was some wet moss on the stone, and I slipped on that."

A few minutes later he said, "That was actually really cool."

Later in the game he crit on a sneak attack (on a ghoul in a tunnel under the mausoleum...of course) and out of 6d6 he got (if I remember it correctly) 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 4. The ghoul exploded. Black blood everywhere. He said, "Ok, that was even cooler than the slipping on the moss thing." Later he eagerly, and graphically, recounted his exploit to his mom, my sister. ("Really, sis, this game is GREAT for developing minds.")

I blame it on table style personally.

I've tried pretty hard to get people to describe things to me about how they accomplish a task. I've tried and I've tried, and all I get are blank stares and "I don't knows"

So, I've taken over the "style points" narration. When a player lands an awesome blow, I describe it. When they pull off an intense character skill challenge, I describe it.

Otherwise they just stare at me in existential terror at having to come up with something on the spot.

I haven't given up on it, but it's just a fact of my style now after all these years.

That's certainly true in my experience and it's likely the call I'll make, but the rules make no judgment on a "default" adjudication here. The most support that can be found for this ruling, to my knowledge, is a Deception vs. Insight example in the Multiple Ability Checks section of the DMG for when a task might not be repeated.

This is definitely a minor point on the surface, but I think it underscores that we shouldn't just assume the way we generally do things is what the rules say. It's a good meditation on scrutinizing our own assumptions, if nothing else, and of course if you prefer to change the rules or rule a particular way by default to suit the way you play, that's perfectly reasonable.

So... what value are we getting out of this "rules don't say" conclusion?

I understand making sure we look at our assumptions and make sure we know what the rules are (I'm having a discussion in another thread where the fact that you can wield any weapon regardless of proficiency is being brought up)

But in this instance... what is the alternative here that is worth noting? That the rules don't explicit tie the skill called out for lying as being countered by the skill that detects lying? Did they even need to state those two skills being in opposition?

I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make by quoting the rules at me here and hinting at "deeper" points.

 

[iserith]

I understand making sure we look at our assumptions and make sure we know what the rules are

^ That's it. It addresses an undercurrent in this discussion, that's all.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I blame it on table style personally.

I've tried pretty hard to get people to describe things to me about how they accomplish a task. I've tried and I've tried, and all I get are blank stares and "I don't knows"

So, I've taken over the "style points" narration. When a player lands an awesome blow, I describe it. When they pull off an intense character skill challenge, I describe it.

Otherwise they just stare at me in existential terror at having to come up with something on the spot.

I haven't given up on it, but it's just a fact of my style now after all these years.

Well, that would certainly make it hard to play using "goal and method".

(Or, as I now like to call it, "The Medellin Interpretation.")

 

[Bawylie]

(Or, as I now like to call it, "The Medellin Interpretation.")

Why? What is that?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Why? What is that?

Check iserith's location. (It's a dorky play on "The Copenhagen Interpretation")

 

[Charlaquin]

I think most players would realize the situation where Insight is impossible. Such as trying to Insight a recording or a letter.

But, to get to a question that might have an answer. If they tried, and there was no ambiguity because it is too easy. What do you tell them?

Do you tell them no roll is necessary and just leave it at that, or do you tell them that no roll is necessary because they can easily tell?

I've had times I've needed to tell players "No, the letter isn't lying to you" when they try and use Insight in a manner where it does not apply, but I let them know why there isn't a roll necessary, which means they either know it is impossible to tell or they succeed. And succeeding by realizing it is impossible is... kind of weird.

This is why I don’t have players make checks to see if an NPC is lying. If an NPC is lying, I make a Deception check for the NPC against the PCs’ passive Insight. If the NPC fails, I tell them something they notice about the NPC that could indicate they are lying (lack of eye contact, stuttering, sweating, some kind of behavioral tic that could be a tell, etc.) If the NPC succeeds, or if they are not lying, I say nothing and let the players draw their own conclusions.

I know this is sarcasm, and it is quite well done too, but it does lead me to a good point on DM presentation.

For an 8th level rogue with prof to get an 11... they had to roll low. Player knows it, I know it. So, while narrating the result I don't say "No you failed" I'd say something more like "You're tired of this dungeon, and while you put in a good show of looking you only really glance at the handle while thinking about the fat piles of loot in your future."

Oof. That gets a hard Nope from me. No, I do not only glance at the handle. I told you I looked closely, sniffed the air, and wiped the handle with a cloth to see if there was any residue. I get control over one thing and one thing only in this game, and that’s my character’s actions. Take that away from me and what am I even here for?

 

[Oofta]

Oof. That gets a hard Nope from me. No, I do not only glance at the handle. I told you I looked closely, sniffed the air, and wiped the handle with a cloth to see if there was any residue. I get control over one thing and one thing only in this game, and that’s my character’s actions. Take that away from me and what am I even here for?

What some people refuse to accept or acknowledge is that finding/removing traps descriptively is boring for a lot of people. They may have focused their limited options on being the greatest trap finder/remover they can be so they want to be rewarded by using the skill now and then.

But describing in detail how they counteract yet another contact poison? Snooze time. Not to mention, why is it always contact poison? And why would pouring fermented grape juice on it do anything at all? Why would anyone else at the table care? I think if anyone started doing this at my table, I'd start throwing in alcoholic mimics that pretended to be poisoned door handles.

So when it comes to that kind of stuff ... if people want to describe it and are reasonably entertaining fantastic. Here's a cookie inspiration point. But I don't expect people to play my way. I don't expect them to describe every sword swing or how they read arcane script or decipher religious symbolism. I don't even expect them to describe how they find/disable mundane traps. Even if some doorknob mimics may be disappointed by that.