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

[Satyrn]

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

This is especially fun for me when I roll a Nat 1. Even more so when I was playing the half orc in 3e.

Satyrn: "I got a, uh, negative 1."

 

[Bawylie]

As far as pixel-bitching is concerned, I think there's a miscommunication or a disconnect between this idea of:
(a) DM requires a specific course of action for the PC to succeed and,
(b) DM requires some specificity in the PCs description of their action in order to adjudicate properly.

Sure, as a DM I'd like you to be more specific as a player, but not because there's 'one true way' past the challenge.
I just want to hear what we see your character doing in this scene. Add a sentence to the story we're telling.

I think we can all agree that (a) is problematic and (b) is what many posters here are actually aiming for.

Important distinction here.

 

[Charlaquin]

A DM might do that, but doesn't need to. The draft can simply be part of the description of the environment.

Yes, absolutely. It’s also worth noting that my way of using passive checks is a little different than what the rules describe.

 

[Nebulous]

As DM, this Insight to detect lie is one of my most hated aspects of D&D. It is liberally used as a Detect Lie spell, with everyone just rolling for a 19 or 20 and hoping for auto-success, as if you can easily discern a lie from someone. To REALLY be able to detect a lie would require training, and even then it would be probably for a familiar humanoid race, not including trying to tell if a Mind Flayer is lying to you. And to add to that, a good liar is REALLY GOOD at lying, but the paltry +5 to Deception or whatever doesn't take that into consideration.

I always think of that scene from True Romance where Christopher Walken is interrogating Dennis Hopper, and how his father from the old country taught him that a man has 17 signals if he is lying. That has nothing to do with rolling a 20, that's flat out SKILL.

 

[iserith]

The way I look at it is that players tend to try to roll more often if there is no consequence for failure. That's a reasonable behavior given the way the DM is running the game. But the rules say that there is no roll unless there's a meaningful consequence for failure (and an uncertain outcome). So if you just do what the rules say, players will tend to stop trying to roll because rolling has consequences when they fail. That doesn't mean they'll stop trying to do stuff. They'll just try to figure out ways to succeed or at least mitigate the swinginess of the d20 as much as they can. Those are also reasonable behaviors, given the game's rules. Applied to this topic, if the result of a failed Insight check is that the social interaction challenge gets harder or ends in an undesirable outcome (for the characters if not the players), players will tend to be more careful about trying to pile on the Insight checks.

Further, the DM would be doing him or herself a favor by making it so Insight is a skill proficiency applied to more than just tasks with uncertain outcomes tied to lie detection. The DMG discusses this in the section on Social Interaction. It can be used to resolve tasks related to uncover the NPC's ideal, bond, flaw, or agenda which can then be leveraged to get the NPC to do what the players want them to do. If you discover that this lying NPC "cares for his baby girl more than life itself," then you can use that to your advantage by offering to protect his baby girl. Then maybe he'll come clean. That's arguably more valuable than trying to tell if the NPC is lying in certain situations. Plus it makes your social interaction challenges deeper and more varied. Prepping the NPC's personality trait, ideal, bond, flaw, and agenda also helps the DM with portraying the NPC faithfully and consistently.

Finally, for those who use lies as the primary obstacle in a social interaction challenge and/or don't like to reveal to players that an NPC is lying in a direct manner (with or without a roll), consider this: A lie in a social interaction challenge is like a pit trap in an exploration challenge. You might have the NPC lie and the player's character believes it (falls into the hidden pit trap). Or you might have the NPC lie and the player's character is suspicious (searches for hidden pit traps). The interesting part of play to my mind is not the search for the lie (or the trap), but what the player does with the information if the task is successful. You know the NPC is lying - now what? (You know there's a pit trap blocking the path - now what?) The challenge is not yet done. The characters in the trap scene from my games I mentioned upthread knew there were traps. It was obvious. The hard part was what to do about it. Your social interaction challenges can be largely the same.

I'll add that it's easier to deal with this sort of thing if your next plot point isn't hinging on the characters believing an NPC's lie. And in general, DMing is easier if you don't care about any particular solution or outcome except that it's fun for everyone and helps contribute to an exciting, memorable story.

 

[5ekyu]

As DM, this Insight to detect lie is one of my most hated aspects of D&D. It is liberally used as a Detect Lie spell, with everyone just rolling for a 19 or 20 and hoping for auto-success, as if you can easily discern a lie from someone. To REALLY be able to detect a lie would require training, and even then it would be probably for a familiar humanoid race, not including trying to tell if a Mind Flayer is lying to you. And to add to that, a good liar is REALLY GOOD at lying, but the paltry +5 to Deception or whatever doesn't take that into consideration.

I always think of that scene from True Romance where Christopher Walken is interrogating Dennis Hopper, and how his father from the old country taught him that a man has 17 signals if he is lying. That has nothing to do with rolling a 20, that's flat out SKILL.

Ok so i will bite - if your npc is REALLY GOOD all caps at lying, why did you assign him a "paltry +5" if you do not think that is representative of it?

The DMG reccommends a DC of 20 baseline to reflect someone with both skill/training and Aptitude. So, that would be a starting point based in their recommendations for me for a DC to catch someone in a lie that fit that bill - REALLY GOOD all caps.

Furthermore, if its a lie they knew was gona be needed, say an alibi or some other part of the con, i would give the liar "advantage" reflecting "prior actions" like planning out supporting points, refining his script, planned out red herrings etc.

So by now we have a baseline DC of 20 with disadvantage (or 25 straight up using the +5 for passives replacements.)

So, to me, setting the REALLY GOOD all caps liar at a simple +5 opposition just seems to be a mismatch between your view of the NPC and the stats you give them.

But, fun thing on that other topic, me too die rolls... I find they tend to stop or get greatly reduced when the "every failire can include setback" definitions are used straight out of the PHB.

The whole "i might roll a 20 (or 17+) and get something" is not as appealing when they also see "but if i roll anything lower i might get bad stuff too."

...
...
...

"Wait, what do you mean the pouch with the stones and that ring is missing? I had it just a little while ago."

"Absolutely, you had it in that bar, when we all tried to suss out that guy's lies. Remember, you ducked at that but still managed to spot some of it as true."

"So where did it go? Could someone have lifted it?"

"What, when we were all studying the guy? Nah. Not hardly... Could they?"

 

[Yardiff]

"Not only is my approach written right into the rules of the game which you are free to read at your leisure, I've explained it many times in this thread and others. If you don't understand it, then you must not want to because I certainly don't think you're stupid."


Every time you post something like this is where you get push back because it can very easily read as 'my way is the best way because its right there in the rules so your way isn't the right way'.

 

[Bawylie]

"Not only is my approach written right into the rules of the game which you are free to read at your leisure, I've explained it many times in this thread and others. If you don't understand it, then you must not want to because I certainly don't think you're stupid."


Every time you post something like this is where you get push back because it can very easily read as 'my way is the best way because its right there in the rules so your way isn't the right way'.

It could be read that way, if you assume some ill-intent. Or even a less-than-charitable plain reading.

OTOH if you assume good faith, it’s kind of like citing the rules in baseball. “Here’s what they are, there’s no true dispute over what they are, I’m not trying to call balls strikes, I’m just referencing which is which.”

I don’t read any of it like “you got this call wrong.” It’s like “I’d have ruled this way, for these reasons.”

 

[iserith]

"Not only is my approach written right into the rules of the game which you are free to read at your leisure, I've explained it many times in this thread and others. If you don't understand it, then you must not want to because I certainly don't think you're stupid."

Every time you post something like this is where you get push back because it can very easily read as 'my way is the best way because its right there in the rules so your way isn't the right way'.

I appreciate your suggestion. In turn, I would suggest that the most effective way to deal with that is not to try to get me to change what I say, but to change how you interpret what I say, given that I've stated your interpretation is not my intention, and you presumably have control over yourself, whereas you have no control over me.

If your way (or Hussar's way or whoever) works for you and your table, then it shouldn't matter what the rules say or what I say about my way, right?

 

[Yardiff]

I appreciate your suggestion. In turn, I would suggest that the most effective way to deal with that is not to try to get me to change what I say, but to change how you interpret what I say, given that I've stated your interpretation is not my intention, and you presumably have control over yourself, whereas you have no control over me.

If your way (or Hussar's way or whoever) works for you and your table, then it shouldn't matter what the rules say or what I say about my way, right?

Actually I think your quite dismissive of what I said. But as you've said, you do you and I'll do me.