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

[Ovinomancer]

I was assuming uncertainty from the perspective of the PC. Uncertainty from the perspective of the DM doesn't matter to me. Also, it was just a joke.

But in any case the horse is still dead, and there isn't really anything new here. Have a good one.

Do you only read part of my posts? I directly addressed the uncertainty statement, but your response is devoid of any recognition of that, instead just repeating your initial point. It's very difficult to try to explain a playstyle if the person who asks doesn't bother engaging the explanation. Do you really wish to try to understand, or is this all performative?

 

[Oofta]

So despite claims to the contrary, you cannot tell if a person is lying just through body language unless you have a baseline of their behavior to compare it to -- and even then, it isn't certain. You can tell if someone is under a cognitive load based upon their body language, but it is generally not possible to tell why.

So baring magic like a Zone of Truth, and Insight check should not be able to determine if someone is telling the truth one way or another. And even Zone of Truth provides a large amount of wiggle room. The only way to be certain if an NPC is telling the truth is to confirm their information. Overtime, you can then determine if an NPC is trustworthy or not.

So, the DC for a "truth" check for an NPC that is a stranger to a player should be very high -- like DC 30 or something. Generally, I prefer to create ahead of time a chart that reflects the amount of information a check gives (insight, history, investigation, etc).

Check 5 or better gives x
Check 10 or better gives y
Check 15 or better gives z
etc.

Even if the PCs don't make a check it give you as the DM a better idea as to what information an NPC has they can impart.

While I agree that in the real world you are correct, the rules state that "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".

Just another example of D&D being over-simplified. Personally I use insight as more of a vague feeling rather than a lie detector, but that's not following the letter of the rules.

 

[Oofta]

Do you only read part of my posts? I directly addressed the uncertainty statement, but your response is devoid of any recognition of that, instead just repeating your initial point. It's very difficult to try to explain a playstyle if the person who asks doesn't bother engaging the explanation. Do you really wish to try to understand, or is this all performative?

I understand you, I just don't run my games like that and I don't see what value it adds to the game.

Horse. Dead. Time to move on.

 

[WaterRabbit]

While I agree that in the real world you are correct, the rules state that "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".

Just another example of D&D being over-simplified. Personally I use insight as more of a vague feeling rather than a lie detector, but that's not following the letter of the rules.

The question really is should insight be better than the 2nd level spell ZoT? That is subject more to DM interpretation. Also the DC is set by the DM, so a DC 30 for a stranger aligns with the general rule for Insight.

 

[iserith]

The question really is should insight be better than the 2nd level spell ZoT? That is subject more to DM interpretation. Also the DC is set by the DM, so a DC 30 for a stranger aligns with the general rule for Insight.

After reading the spell, it looks to me like zone of truth performs a somewhat different function than a task to observe mannerisms and body language to determine a creature's true intentions. You may even be likelier to get a more evasive response or no response at all from a creature in a zone of truth. Zone of truth probably enhances but does not replace mundane attempts to get at the truth. So I don't really see it as a trade-off that needs balancing.

 

[Satyrn]

"If an NPC's horse is dead, what's the Medicine DC to know the horse is dead?"

After all, the horse is lying (on the ground).

Me (playing Barbarian Joe): I smack the horse with my club. I know it's dead NOW.

 

[Oofta]

The question really is should insight be better than the 2nd level spell ZoT? That is subject more to DM interpretation. Also the DC is set by the DM, so a DC 30 for a stranger aligns with the general rule for Insight.

There's a fairly common trope in fiction of "the human lie detector" and some people probably are slightly better at it than others.

However, in my games the only 100% sure-fire way of knowing whether someone is lying is magic. Even then, as you stated there are frequently ways of skirting the truth if using zone of truth. People also remember things incorrectly all the time as well so you probably need hard evidence to be certain. False memories are easily created - see the "lost in the mall false memory" study.

Telling the players that they don't need to bother with an insight check because the person is telling the truth makes insight far too powerful for my game. Which is why I would go with the old standby "They seem to be telling the truth".

Adjudicating interrogations can be tough, but I agree with your concept of getting more based on DCs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I understand you, I just don't run my games like that and I don't see what value it adds to the game.

Horse. Dead. Time to move on.

This started because you asked, and continued because you kept misrepresenting the playstyle. I'm more than willing to concede different strokes, and all that, but I'm skeptical you actually understand given your repeated complaints about things that aren't even a factor in my play. Still, provided we skip further performative credulity, I'm willing to let the horse lie.

 

[Oofta]

This started because you asked, and continued because you kept misrepresenting the playstyle. I'm more than willing to concede different strokes, and all that, but I'm skeptical you actually understand given your repeated complaints about things that aren't even a factor in my play. Still, provided we skip further performative credulity, I'm willing to let the horse lie.

If my player states something along the lines of "I don't believe them, I think they're lying. Can I make an insight check?" I will let them even though I know the NPC is telling the truth. I also won't ask for any more clarification of what they're doing, to me it's obvious.

It's my understanding that you would not have them roll because you know the NPC is telling the truth. Perhaps you've somehow "broadcast" that they're telling the truth. You may also object to them asking to make a specific skill check (sorry, I don't remember everything you've said).

If that's misrepresenting what you would do, I apologize. If it's not, then I understand what you're saying I just don't run my game that way.

 

[Imaculata]

In my experience, this just leads to players using magic to overcome everything because magic, unlike skills, doesn't require any DM adjudication. They know what they are going to get if they use a mage hand to open a chest or whatever. And I really don't want that.

If the players are going to use magic to overcome my traps, they are using up some of their resources, which is okay in my book. Besides, not all traps can be overcome that easily with magic, and magic should feel useful to the players.

Honestly, I cant remember the last time I saw someone posting about their GMing and saying anything like

"Honestly though, the way I make rulings on ABCD is very unfair towards my players."

Just sayin'

You haven't seen me posting about how I balance my combat encounters then, I presume.
Honestly though, it is very unfair. I always pick monsters at least 2 CR's higher than what is reasonable. I first throw a bunch of easy encounters at them to completely drain them of their resources, before dropping them into a double boss fight with two powerful foes that are 4 CR's higher than they should be, with a bunch of minions that are 2 CR's higher than appropriate for their level.