Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?

[5ekyu]

A question prompted by this:

Suppose a player is playing Battle Master fighter. The rules establish this character as a tactical expert; but suppose the player - either deliberately, or because s/he can't do any better - plays the PC as tactically incompetent. Does this create an issue for you?

And vice versa: what if the PC is (say) a bard with modest INT and nothing in his/her backstory to suggest tactical acumen, but the player is a strong wargamer and plays his/her PC with very good tactical skill (eg optimising damage per spell slot spent, making excellent risk/reward choices in regards to targetting and battlefield positioning, etc). Do you regard that as cheating?

I will give you my takes-

Battle Master - in my games the rules dont establish the character as a tactical expert, the player does. The rules establish certain capabilities, but their precise "nature" is more fluid. But more directly to your point, just like with cases of many other "skills" I have little problem with calling for a check and telling a player "your character's expertise would tell you..." unless they had established a specific gap in the "expertise" as a matter of story. If they then choose to ignore that, that's fine.

In the second, I do not link the broader INT score (more often Wis for cunning) for experience and savvy at the specific things they do. I am not one to rule that Int is de facto "behind everything" and start to rationalize it as needed for putting on a good performance (remembering songs or your set) or cooking (cuz remembering recipes) etc etc and so I would not also carry that into knowing how to use their other abilities that are not derived from INT stat.

As for the backstory vs decisions in play, I do not have to get into that much, and try to avoid getting into too much backseat driving their roleplaying.

If I wanted a game play where INT was required for these kinds of choices, then mechanically, there would be a prerequisite to gain the benefit. For example, maybe I would add "flanking gives you a bonus to your to hit equal to your Int bonus."

But some fun bits of role play can come out of these. Have seen more than one character where frequently their decisions were "just like in" where the character would reference some book, play, song, history or (setting dependdnt) TV show or movie as their reference for "inexperienced" but savvy play. There have been some more recent nods to this in how MCU has presented Spider-Man suggestion really clever plans based on movies, but it's been around in fiction (and reality) far far longer than that.

 

[D1Tremere]

A question prompted by this:

Suppose a player is playing Battle Master fighter. The rules establish this character as a tactical expert; but suppose the player - either deliberately, or because s/he can't do any better - plays the PC as tactically incompetent. Does this create an issue for you?

And vice versa: what if the PC is (say) a bard with modest INT and nothing in his/her backstory to suggest tactical acumen, but the player is a strong wargamer and plays his/her PC with very good tactical skill (eg optimising damage per spell slot spent, making excellent risk/reward choices in regards to targetting and battlefield positioning, etc). Do you regard that as cheating?

To example 1. If the player is playing a specifically tactically minded class as incompetent I would ask for some explanation or role playing reason for this. If they are just not very good at playing that type of character it is no big deal as the rules are built into the class and the fluff is just an in game justification.

For example 2, it really depends on how obvious the meta-gaming really is. Some groups love meta-gaming, but I prefer to go for a more narrative experience where possible. All characters exist in a world governed by the same basic rules, and nothing says you have to be a tactical genius to take advantage of the basic physics of your world. Therefore, I would't view playing your character efficiently in relationship to the rules they are governed by as necessarily indicative of strategic genius nor meta-gaming, though it could be.

Neither of these are directly related to my main point, which is that disregarding the rules/physics of the game whenever you dislike the outcome undermines the structure of the game. If everyone just runs around doing whatever they wish and choosing what is or is not real for their character, then it becomes a childhood game of cops & robbers, destined to end in a "yes I did", "no you didn't" scenario.

 

[iserith]

Neither of these are directly related to my main point, which is that disregarding the rules/physics of the game whenever you dislike the outcome undermines the structure of the game.

The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions though - not the rules - so why would the DM choose possible outcomes for success or failure that aren't fun for everyone and/or don't contribute to an exciting, memorable story?

 

[D1Tremere]

The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions though - not the rules - so why would the DM choose possible outcomes for success or failure that aren't fun for everyone and/or don't contribute to an exciting, memorable story?

The DM narrates the adventure AND arbitrates the rules. Failure isn't always fun, but it still happens sometimes. Failure exists to give success meaning in the game, and to provide environmental feedback which can lead to learning. That said, I am unclear as to why you would equate having rules and enforcing them when they are invoked by a player with not being fun/contributing to a memorable story.
If success in every action were a given, I think that would undermine fun and memorable story telling more than rules arbitration.
If a DM does not arbitrate rules and they break down then the fun comes to a halt when the agency of two or more player "gods" conflicts.
Example: Player 1 chooses to role to detect intent regarding deception from NPC. Player 1 gets a total of 10 (which succeed, unbeknownst to player 1). Player 1 is told that their character doesn't sense any deceptive intentions. Player 1 decides to act as though they did anyway. Player 2 also makes an ability check and succeeds, but now gets into an argument with player 1 for the rest of the session because player 1 is contradicting player 2's character despite the evidence.

 

[5ekyu]

The DM narrates the adventure AND arbitrates the rules. Failure isn't always fun, but it still happens sometimes. Failure exists to give success meaning in the game, and to provide environmental feedback which can lead to learning. That said, I am unclear as to why you would equate having rules and enforcing them when they are invoked by a player with not being fun/contributing to a memorable story.
If success in every action were a given, I think that would undermine fun and memorable story telling more than rules arbitration.
If a DM does not arbitrate rules and they break down then the fun comes to a halt when the agency of two or more player "gods" conflicts.
Example: Player 1 chooses to role to detect intent regarding deception from NPC. Player 1 gets a total of 10 (which succeed, unbeknownst to player 1). Player 1 is told that their character doesn't sense any deceptive intentions. Player 1 decides to act as though they did anyway. Player 2 also makes an ability check and succeeds, but now gets into an argument with player 1 for the rest of the session because player 1 is contradicting player 2's character despite the evidence.

In my experience, failures, especially obvious with failure as in 5e which can be some success with setback, is oftem fodder for fantastic story that is very enjoyable in the arch of the campaign or even scene.

 

[iserith]

The DM narrates the adventure AND arbitrates the rules. Failure isn't always fun, but it still happens sometimes. Failure exists to give success meaning in the game, and to provide environmental feedback which can lead to learning. That said, I am unclear as to why you would equate having rules and enforcing them when they are invoked by a player with not being fun/contributing to a memorable story.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here, but you said "disregarding the rules/physics of the game whenever you dislike the outcome undermines the structure of the game." I'm saying the outcome is up to the DM even when the rules are being used to resolve an outcome (particularly in the case of ability checks), so why would the DM choose outcomes - either success or failure - that aren't fun for everyone and contribute to an exciting, memorable story? If both success and failure are fun for the players (if not the characters) then disregarding the rules because the result is not fun wouldn't really be an issue, right?

If success in every action were a given, I think that would undermine fun and memorable story telling more than rules arbitration.

I don't think anyone is advocating for success in every action.

If a DM does not arbitrate rules and they break down then the fun comes to a halt when the agency of two or more player "gods" conflicts.
Example: Player 1 chooses to role to detect intent regarding deception from NPC. Player 1 gets a total of 10 (which succeed, unbeknownst to player 1). Player 1 is told that their character doesn't sense any deceptive intentions. Player 1 decides to act as though they did anyway. Player 2 also makes an ability check and succeeds, but now gets into an argument with player 1 for the rest of the session because player 1 is contradicting player 2's character despite the evidence.

I don't fully understand the argument that the players are having in your example, but anyway players don't get to decide to roll checks in D&D 5e. That is the DM's role. And no one but the player can decide what the character thinks and how he or she acts. Some of the issues you suggest may occur may be mitigated by simply doing what the game says to do.

 

[D1Tremere]

I don't think anyone is advocating for success in every action.

The point of the topic, and the discussion I was having with ElfCrusher, is the use of the Perception skill in detecting lies. My stance is that once a player uses the skill he is bound by the results, and should not simply be free to act otherwise by invoking player agency. The use of this ability tells the player what his character thinks (i.e., there is or is not intent to deceive present). This is what it does, and to do other wise would amount to letting a player choose when/if they fail.

The DM does not choose whether actions succeed or fail. The rules say that an action either succeeds or fails (you either make the attack roll or you miss, etc.). The DM can certainly choose to ignore the rules/roles if they deem it necessary, such as, as you have said, in cases where the game would be more fun or the story more interesting. The problem is, that isn't what this topic, or my comments are about. I have been discussing the use of the Perception skill in determining intention to deceive, and whether a player (not the DM) should be free to disregard the outcome of this skill check to preserve player agency.

 

[iserith]

The point of the topic, and the discussion I was having with ElfCrusher, is the use of the Perception skill in detecting lies. My stance is that once a player uses the skill he is bound by the results, and should not simply be free to act otherwise by invoking player agency. The use of this ability tells the player what his character thinks (i.e., there is or is not intent to deceive present). This is what it does, and to do other wise would amount to letting a player choose when/if they fail.

The DM does not choose whether actions succeed or fail. The rules say that an action either succeeds or fails (you either make the attack roll or you miss, etc.). The DM can certainly choose to ignore the rules/roles if they deem it necessary, such as, as you have said, in cases where the game would be more fun or the story more interesting. The problem is, that isn't what this topic, or my comments are about. I have been discussing the use of the Perception skill in determining intention to deceive, and whether a player (not the DM) should be free to disregard the outcome of this skill check to preserve player agency.

The player always determines what the character thinks, does, and says - those are the rules. They are not bound to the result of an ability check made to resolve whether the task the PC performed was sufficient to notice anything about the NPC's truthfulness. If the NPC is lying (or telling the truth) and my character's task to determine that fails, I can still choose to have the character think the NPC is lying (or telling the truth). The DM is just telling me what my character observes about the NPC's behavior as it pertains to truthfulness, not what the character thinks. This is no different than the DM telling me what my character observes in the environment.

Also, the DM does choose which actions succeed and fail. That is the DM's role. Sometimes though, the DM is uncertain, and so he or she calls for an ability check if there's a meaningful consequence for failure.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The point of the topic, and the discussion I was having with ElfCrusher, is the use of the Perception skill in detecting lies. My stance is that once a player uses the skill he is bound by the results, and should not simply be free to act otherwise by invoking player agency. The use of this ability tells the player what his character thinks (i.e., there is or is not intent to deceive present). This is what it does, and to do other wise would amount to letting a player choose when/if they fail.

Oh, hey, so it looks like I wasn't reading too much into your previous posts, after all.

So, um, yeah, you and I, we play the game very differently.

The irony here is that your DMing style inadvertently leads to the outcome espoused by goal-and-method DMs: if I know that you will require me to roleplay my character by the results of a Perception/Insight check, I'm just not going to declare any actions that might cause you to force me to make such a roll.

The DM does not choose whether actions succeed or fail.

Methinks you are playing a game other than D&D 5e, because that is simply false.

 

[D1Tremere]

The player always determines what the character thinks, does, and says - those are the rules. They are not bound to the result of an ability check made to resolve whether the task the PC performed was sufficient to notice anything about the NPC's truthfulness. If the NPC is lying (or telling the truth) and my character's task to determine that fails, I can still choose to have the character think the NPC is lying (or telling the truth).

The player always determines what the character thinks, does, and says, EXCEPT when those things are determined by the rules or the DM. They are always bound by the results of checks (or do players in your game simply disbelieve damage and hits away?). A DM can choose to disregard the outcome of the rules/roles, and a player can choose to roleplay a scenario without invoking roles in many cases, but ultimately a player roles dice to try and succeed at a task or suffer the outcomes of failure. Why else are the dice there?

The DM is just telling me what my character observes about the NPC's behavior as it pertains to truthfulness, not what the character thinks. This is no different than the DM telling me what my character observes in the environment.

The skill actually says “Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature.” Note that it says the check decides what your character determines (which is telling them what they think). What exactly would your character’s thoughts be based on in such a scenario if not what they observed in their environment?

The irony here is that your DMing style inadvertently leads to the outcome espoused by goal-and-method DMs: if I know that you will require me to roleplay my character by the results of a Perception/Insight check, I'm just not going to declare any actions that might cause you to force me to make such a roll.

A DM can’t FORCE a player to make a roll. A player can choose to make a role in pursuit of a mechanical task, which is why the rules exist in the first place. You can choose for your character that they believe someone is lying or telling the truth just as anyone can eschew engaging with reality when conjuring their beliefs and opinions. If you want to pretend your character knows what is what that is fine, but once you engage with reality is has a nasty way of conflicting with such beliefs.

Methinks you are playing a game other than D&D 5e, because that is simply false.

To clarify my position, a DM certainly CAN choose what actions succeed or fail, but that involves disregarding the rules. That is something they are free to do (and should do in many cases), but it is not the default of each action generally. To make success and failure an arbitrary extension of the DM would create a lot of problems, not the least of which would be invalidating every mechanical choice that players made for their characters. To disregard a check here or there or ignore a rule when it suits a scene is fine. To reduce every character to an avatar of the player with no mechanical strengths or weaknesses would be playing a game other than 5e.