Player Characters As Lie Detectors

[Kynn]

I really hope the Sense Motive (3e) / Insight (4e) skill doesn't make it into 5e. I think it clobbers the heck out of roleplaying and common sense when PCs can just ask "is he telling the truth?" and roll a d20 and find out the answer.

(Yes, even if the DM makes the roll instead of the PC, it's still a really dumb mechanic that's stupidly harmful to roleplaying and plot development.)

If you wanna think a guy is lying, then sure, think that. Come up with a reason he's lying. Prove him wrong on something, call him out. But let's drop the idea that everyone has a fair-to-good chance to measure someone's heart rate and sweaty palms and instantly tell who is deceitful.

 

[Mark CMG]

Not sure how I feel about dropping it/them but I do side with those who feel that those and a number of other "checks" are best in the hands of the DM for the sake of mystery and granularity of results, as well as to keep secret factors from being obviously counter to or included in such results.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Fantasy (and other fiction) is full of characters who are experts at telling when someone is lying. This should be available to PCs.

Of course, you could make it more rare than a commonly-held skill check. And it should be a secret roll.

 

[Minigiant]

I really hope the Sense Motive (3e) / Insight (4e) skill doesn't make it into 5e. I think it clobbers the heck out of roleplaying and common sense when PCs can just ask "is he telling the truth?" and roll a d20 and find out the answer.

(Yes, even if the DM makes the roll instead of the PC, it's still a really dumb mechanic that's stupidly harmful to roleplaying and plot development.)

If you wanna think a guy is lying, then sure, think that. Come up with a reason he's lying. Prove him wrong on something, call him out. But let's drop the idea that everyone has a fair-to-good chance to measure someone's heart rate and sweaty palms and instantly tell who is deceitful.

Who is you?
Because I, the player, doesn't know if Lord Oakdale is lying. And even if I did, I can't tell Bob the barbarian. Lord Oakdale has to roll higher than Bob's Insight/SenseMotive/Wisdom to not flub his deception.

I, the player, can't make Bob, the PC, suspicious. The dice roll does. Bob doesn't even know when to be suspicious.

"Is he telling the truth?" isn't a question player can even ask IMO. The lying rolls, the lied to is asked to roll... maybe... sometimes.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I really hope the Sense Motive (3e) / Insight (4e) skill doesn't make it into 5e. I think it clobbers the heck out of roleplaying and common sense when PCs can just ask "is he telling the truth?" and roll a d20 and find out the answer.

(Yes, even if the DM makes the roll instead of the PC, it's still a really dumb mechanic that's stupidly harmful to roleplaying and plot development.)

If you wanna think a guy is lying, then sure, think that. Come up with a reason he's lying. Prove him wrong on something, call him out. But let's drop the idea that everyone has a fair-to-good chance to measure someone's heart rate and sweaty palms and instantly tell who is deceitful.

One of my best role-played characters (A PC in my home game) was a Monk with skill focus Insight, and during RP he based his character was suppose to be like SHerlock homes, becuse the player is a funny guy and not good at these skills in real life he ended up more like Sean spencer (psych) but it was great.

Having skills does not impead RP, people who RP well do so with or without skills...

 

[Sunseeker]

Fantasy (and other fiction) is full of characters who are experts at telling when someone is lying. This should be available to PCs.

Of course, you could make it more rare than a commonly-held skill check. And it should be a secret roll.

THIS, basically. You name a fantasy series and you'll almost always have one if not multiple characters who seem to have intuitive knowledge of if another character is lying or being deceitful.


Insight, along with sense motive, I think it one of those things that needs a serious amount of discretion. In my games, Insight and Sense Motive aren't "roll to win" things, they're a very fine gradient of detection. A player may make a very good sense motive or insight check and not really get very much information. It also majorly depends on what the players ask me as the DM, how they phrase their question.

Asking if someone is deceiving you or lying to you may net you an answer like "yes", but to find out what they're lying about you'd have to ask the NPC in question.

I really don't see how this is different from diplomacy or intimidate. Roll high enough and whatever you're trying to accomplish works, even if you'd really have to have a clever tongue or a huge fist to accomplish these things. Some people are really good at hitting things, others are really good at reading people.

 

[BobTheNob]

I always did this as a secret roll and the best I gave is "You suspect there is more to what he is telling you" and other vague descriptions. After that the players had to nut it out.

In addition, if the sercret roll was less than 5 under target I gave them deliberate mis-information. This is VERY important as it stops what I tell them being conclusive. When I say "You suspect there is more to what he is telling you" did that mean they got the target or that they rolled really badly? Players have to proceed on the basis of knowing how good their skill actually is and therefore what the chance of the honest statement actually are. It both rewards them for having a skill and at the same time stops the "roll to resolve" scenario.

Much like real life, when we can mis-read people.

Sorry OP, completely disagree. Treated right, I think rolls for information are a fantastic edition to any game, just keep the rolls secret so the players have to stayt on there toes

 

[Gargoyle]

There needs to be less focus on skills, and more focus on roleplaying. I would like to see skills like Insight die in the same fire with skill challenges.

If you're roleplaying Bob the Barbarian well, you can choose to ignore that Lord Oakdale is obviously lying, or you can choose not believe him. Either way, you might be wrong or right, but if the decision is left to the dice, that's less of a chance for some fun decision making IMO.

However, I'm assuming you're a smart player portraying a relatively dull character. The usual argument to have such skills in the game is to make it so that a dull player can successfully play a wise character. If I'm playing a cleric named Solomon with a 20 Wisdom, it makes sense that Solomon will be able to see through Lord Oakdale's lies, even though I'm just as naive as Bob the Barbarian.

That's where a good DM steps in my friends. The DM needs to hint to the player that Solomon is dubious about Lord Oakdale's motives. Inversely, he needs to tell you that Bob really thinks that Lord Oakdale seems to be a trustworthy guy, and that you really will have no problem taking the dragon by surprise in its own lair.

Lastly, the players need to trust the DM. Solomon should be wary and cast some divinations to discover that Lord Oakdale really is the dragon in disguise. Bob should charge into the lair and blunder into the traps and treachery that Lord Oakdale has prepared. The players need to trust that the DM will make either path challenging and fun, and just roleplay without the worry that blunders will cause a TPK.

At first I was glad to see skills like Insight, but over time I have realized that they short circuit roleplaying, and are unnecessary rules complications. Furthermore, skills (or feats) that are devoted to social actions force players to choose between making their characters more powerful in combat, or more effective in social encounters, and that design punishes everyone. Roleplayers have to become less effective in combat to excel at what they like, and min/maxers devoted to combat simply do not participate in roleplaying.

D&D is a role-playing game, not a roll-playing game. You'd be surprised how many players don't know the difference.

 

[Quickleaf]

Insight is not lie detection. Diplomacy is not charm person. Intimidate isn't win the game.

Playing social skills as a such is an interpretation of the rules or a style of gaming, but not the actual rules.

Speaking about 4e in particular...

Whenever you use Insight, you’re making a best guess as to what you think a motive or attitude is or how truthful a target is being. Insight is not an exact science or a supernatural power; it represents your ability to get a sense of how a person is behaving.

At-Will has a good insight about insight over here: Serious Skills: Insight.

"It's not about what, it's about why."


DM: The kobold you've captured sketches out the lair of the dragon, spending an inordinate amount of time drawing traps (and trap victims). He looks up at you with a narrowed eyed servile smile, and in a reptilian purr marks a chamber by an underground river. "Treasurz..."

Player: Is the kobold lying? (rolls obscenely high insight check)

DM: While the rest of the kobold's information so far has been good, you're pretty certain that it's withholding information, perhaps because it thinks doing so is it's best chance at staying alive. A kobold's life isn't that valuable after all. Knowledge, however, is.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I never had any trouble interpreting SM without compromising the integrity of the game.

It just gives you a hunch, or a "sense" of what's going on. The player can only find out what's knowable. Moreover, the complexities of communication allow people to skirt around the truth in all kinds of ways. A successful check might suggest that an NPC seems disingenuous, but in a good roleplaying situation it's not always clear what that NPC is thinking even given this fact.