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

[Bawylie]

Back to the OP. I can see it now. The group has been hired by an insurance company to investigate a jewelry store heist. They're questioning the shopkeeper.

DM/shopkeeper "So I locked up the store as usual, set the normal traps and went upstairs to bed."
Player: "You sleep above the shop?"
DM/shopkeeper: "Yes, it's part of the compensation, and I'm single so it works well for me."
Player: "So no witness and you didn't hear anything at all during the night."
DM/shopkeeper: "No witnesses and no I didn't hear anything. But this building is very solidly built for a reason."
Player: "And there was no sign of forced entry, the traps were still set."
DM/shopkeeper: "That's right. In fact the traps are supposed to ward against magical entry as well."
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."
Player: "So...I'm studying him closely looking for signs that he's being deceptive."
DM: "Okay"
Player: "So can I roll an insight check?"
DM: "No"
Player: "Why not? The PHB says I can use an insight check to try to determine their true intentions."
DM: "Because I didn't ask for an insight check."
Player: "What the f... okay. Mother may I have an insight check?"
DM: "No."
Player: "Dude, I have investigator as my background. I took Inquisitive Rogue so that I'd be particularly good at it. I have the Ear For Deceit feature and expertise in insight. This is kind of a big deal for me. Can I roll an insight check?"
DM: "No, asking for a check does not entitle you to a roll."
​

Is that seriously how this could go if the shopkeeper is telling the truth? Or lying for that matter, and you just don't think there's a reason to suspect the shopkeeper? Because honestly, I wouldn't want to play with a DM that did this.

Because in my game it would be
...skipping a few lines...
Player: "I don't believe him, I think he's hiding something."
DM: "Give me an insight check."
Player: "20"
or even
Player: "I don't believe him, I make an insight check of 20"

My response as DM is going to be something like: "He seems to be telling the truth."

And so on and so forth. Or maybe I'd reveal that the shopkeeper seemed nervous because to me the shopkeeper knows how bad this looks. Or maybe he's as cool as a cucumber and just really good at lying.

Someone else adequately answered this but this one is funny because I’ve actually done this interview myself for a similar situation and I’ve run this type of thing in a game.

To answer: my players aren’t asking to make rolls, so that bit doesn’t come up. Instead they might tell me they suspect, and look for signs of, deception.

I might ask for a wisdom check, and a player might respond “hey I’m trained in insight.”

In this circumstance I’d have an untrained character roll a wisdom check, but a character trained in insight might glean: “The shopkeeper is nervous and frightened, as anyone in this position would be. They’re afraid they will be blamed for the theft and they’re nervous because they can’t tell if anyone here is on their side. There is no indication that they’re being misleading or hiding anything.”

This also answers the OP (if anyone can remember the OP from the before-times). The DC to determine someone is telling the truth depends how you try to verify that - and for a person trained in insight, an automatic success might be most appropriate.

Side note: this approach can also cover the “the DM didn’t make me roll so I know X” issue. Being trained in insight alone is enough to cover a LOT, so a roll itself isn’t demonstrative of anything except an uncertain outcome. A variant can be found in the DMG where if the score is high enough, you can have auto-success (or something like that). I just skip the math and assume a trained character is sufficiently competent to get an auto success absent some notable cost, consequence, or interference.

 

[robus]

Fantastic stuff. Give me more please. You all are apparently super creative DM's, you can faff about figuring out how this secret door works. Knock yourselves out. To me, it's what's on the other side of the door that's important. The door itself? Could really, really not care less.

You want more of this kind of cruft in modules? No thanks. Gimme "Secret Door DC X to discover" every time.

Actually I really don't want to faff about figuring out how it works, I want the adventure writers to do that! But, absolutely, I do want an interesting (and logical) world for my players to explore and interact with. Just killing stuff over and over gets old at my table... (because if there's little to no exploration or social interaction then all that remains is end to end combat?)

 

[Charlaquin]

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."

A while later...

DM: "Ok, you come across another door, this one looks like..."

Rogue (interrupting, in a resigned voice): "...I roll Investigation looking for traps...14"

DM: "Nothing."

Cleric: "I'll roll, too...12, darn."

Wizard: "I got a 17..."

DM: "Nope"

Fighter: "Nat 20! So, um, 19."

DM: "YOU find the trap! Congratulations! Ok, who is going to roll to disarm it?"



Oh, the fun to be had. I'm just giddy with anticipation.

I have had so many games play out exactly like this, and it is the exact problem I endeavor to avoid when I run the game.

 

[Bawylie]

Fantastic stuff. Give me more please. You all are apparently super creative DM's, you can faff about figuring out how this secret door works. Knock yourselves out. To me, it's what's on the other side of the door that's important. The door itself? Could really, really not care less.

You want more of this kind of cruft in modules? No thanks. Gimme "Secret Door DC X to discover" every time.

Because what’s on the other side IS important, it’s often worthwhile for the obstacle to be substantial.

After all, if ye don’ eat yuir meat, ye cannae hae any pudding! How can ye hae any pudding if ye don’ eat yuir meat?!

 

[Hussar]

It's bad form to have been corrected on what "pixel-bitching" is very clearly (which you can verify with a Google search), then continue to use the wrong definition in subsequent posts to erroneously attribute it to how other people play.

I can think of 144 reasons not to do this - you know, a baker's dozen.

Ok, fair enough, I did posrep everyone who corrected me on that. Dunno what I was thinking to be honest. I knew that and had a total brain fade about the bakers dozen.

But, the pixel bitching? Nope, that's precisely what you've described. When the player says the magic words, he gets to make that check, not before. When he really nails the magic words, he doesn't even need to make that check, he just automatically succeeds.

So, yup, that's textbook pixel bitching.

You might not want to call it that, but, that's exactly what you are doing. It's all about testing the player and not the character. The character might as well not even be there, since, so long as the player can guess the right approach based on the hints that you give him, he never actually has to make a skill check. I mean, that's his goal right? To never have to make a check?

Give me a better term then for what you're advocating? Guided role play? Chasing the right word? Boggle? What?

Yeah, this is just going nowhere. At the very least others are willing to discuss pros and cons.

Look, if you think I'm mischaracterizing what you're saying, it's because, in all these pages, YOU'VE NEVER ACTUALLY DEFINED WHAT YOU DO in any concrete terms. I ask, do you do this? Nope, that? nope, the other thing? nope. I honestly have no freaking idea what you are actually doing at the table, other than, apparently, perfectly playing the game how it's meant to be played. You aren't requiring the players to describe how they are doing things while at the same time they have to describe what they are doing but, that description doesn't matter because it's not pixel bitching, but it does matter because they cannot actually move forward without describing, in detail, what they are doing... on and on and on , round and round.

Frankly, all you've done is confused the crap out of me. After all these pages, I haven't the first clue how I would go about playing in your play style. It's the quantum play style, all things to all gamers at all times. :/

I'm done. That's more than enough from me.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, because players routinely announce they are touching random wall sections of a dungeon for no reason?

Not for no reason. Because the mention of different air quality in the room tipped them off that there was something out of the ordinary here, and “I look for secret doors” requires a method by which you hope to discern whether or not secret doors are present.

And, telling me that there is a draft in the room is going to be a clue to find a secret door? Yeah, again, no thanks. I'd just as easily assume poltergeists, or any number of a hundred other things that a draft could be, including nothing at all.

The fact that I specifically mentioned the draft should tip you off that it’s not nothing at all. If you think it’s poltergeists, that’s cool because it’s a starting point for action. Maybe you’ll consider casting truesight or something, and you’ll have to weigh the potential benefits vs. the resource cost. That’s making decisions as you think your character might, that’s roleplaying.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's bad form to have been corrected on what "pixel-bitching" is very clearly (which you can verify with a Google search), then continue to use the wrong definition in subsequent posts to erroneously attribute it to how other people play.

I can think of 144 reasons not to do this - you know, a baker's dozen.

I got a 144 problems but a pixel bitch ain't one.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes, because players routinely announce they are touching random wall sections of a dungeon for no reason? And, telling me that there is a draft in the room is going to be a clue to find a secret door? Yeah, again, no thanks. I'd just as easily assume poltergeists, or any number of a hundred other things that a draft could be, including nothing at all.

I'm really, really glad you folks don't write for WotC.

I'm beginning to get the impression that you are, um...what's the word?...disdainful of this alternative approach. Or am I misreading the clues?

 

[Yardiff]

Not for no reason. Because the mention of different air quality in the room tipped them off that there was something out of the ordinary here, and “I look for secret doors” requires a method by which you hope to discern whether or not secret doors are present.


The fact that I specifically mentioned the draft should tip you off that it’s not nothing at all. If you think it’s poltergeists, that’s cool because it’s a starting point for action. Maybe you’ll consider casting truesight or something, and you’ll have to weigh the potential benefits vs. the resource cost. That’s making decisions as you think your character might, that’s roleplaying.

I'm really, really glad you folks don't write for WotC.

Question: this draft that was noticed, did you use a passive perception to be noticed?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Far, far preferable to the pixel bitching hoops I need to jump through in order to find and disarm a trap. Hey, whatever you find fun. Me? A simple trap on a door is a thirty second speed bump. Throw some dice at it and move on. Oh wait, I looked at the first trap, but, I forgot to mention that I was using a piece of a cloth to wipe for poison? Guess I get to make saving throws against poison now. I didn't specificy exactly the right words to find the trap.

No thanks.

Wow. I tried to write satire, but I got it right? That's scary.

(Kind of like the writers at The Onion trying to write political satire lately.)

But, more seriously, you keep mis-characterizing the approach, but I can't tell if it's because of true misunderstanding or intentional denigration.

Sure, the rogue might have just said, "I inspect the door for traps" without specifying how. So the DM might rule that since no method/approach was specified, the outcome is uncertain, and thus an Investigation roll is needed. Which might be failed. So the outcome is exactly the way you prefer (including that you may then have a cascade of other people rolling if the rogue rolls poorly.)

All we (or at least I) am saying is that if the rogue uses clues/signaling to be more specific, then no roll is needed because success is automatic.

And...just to cut you off before you throw out one of your standard red herrings...NO the rogue does not have to also search the door in 17 other ways, because there has been no signaling or hints that the door might be trapped in other ways.

So it's pretty simple: if the player makes the connection or solves the clue, he/she can avoid a roll. If he just wants to be vague, that makes the outcome uncertain, and the DM may choose to have a roll. (Or reveal the trap anyway, if the rogue is really good at it, and the trap was crudely constructed.) The DM might even rule that a general search is simply not going to find the trap, and no roll is needed because it's an autofailure. (In your parlance, the DM sets the DC at 30.)

But, yeah, anyway, I doubt this is going to have any effect. You pretty clearly have decided this is "pixel-bitching". Ironic, really.