Player Characters As Lie Detectors

[howandwhy99]

Is the OP talking about player skill rather than character skill (stats & rolls) in regards to sensing motive?

I can get behind that, but I would also never give any feedback as deliberate as "He/She is lying/telling the truth." If it really is about player ability, than they need to determine what success means for themselves.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

One word fixes Sense Motive and similar skills: "think".

As in: "You think he's lying." or "You think he's telling the truth."

 

[Minigiant]

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.

See, I am a heavy Character Skill player.

If Lord Oakdale is lying, it is between Oakdale's skill at deception and Bob's ability to sense the motives of others to decide whether Bob senses something is not right.

What determines the strengths of Oakdale's Bluff and Bob's Insight is stated by the system.

What Bob gets out of the result should never be complete lie detection unless Bob wins by a huge amount. I agree with that. But I prefer to roll and describe the result of the roll if a roll is possible.

 

[Lanefan]

Not sure if it survived to later editions, but 1e had Detect Lie as a 4th-level Cleric spell.

Solves a lot of problems...

Lanefan

 

[Yora]

Problems, that I would argue, lots of people actually want in their games. It's an in-game problem, not a rules problem.

 

[Lanefan]

Problems, that I would argue, lots of people actually want in their games. It's an in-game problem, not a rules problem.

True enough.

I've not seen it cast often in the field*, but it's a common procedure in town during trials etc.

* - and it'd be easy enough to make it non-field-friendly if that's an issue by simply giving it some restrictions, one example might be that it can only be cast on ground consecrated to the deity of the caster...

Lanefan

 

[Hassassin]

IMC, spells like zone of truth are only considered about as conclusive evidence as real life lie detectors. The subject can always shut up, skirt around the truth or even make the save.

Regarding player vs. character skills, those who want the player to handle them can just ignore the skills in question.

 

[MortalPlague]

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.

I have a problem with this; it's purely the DM's whim whether or not the PCs can tell if this particular NPC is lying. Either the DM passes along the suspicion, or he doesn't. His choice. I prefer to let the dice dictate whether or not the characters see through the ruse. Having the DM simply choose feels a touch like railroading.

 

[Mattachine]

Since 5e seems to be going with skills optional, things like these social skills will likely be optional. Old schoolers can go diceless/skill-less, some folks could use appropriate ability checks, and folks who like detailed skills could use the social skill checks.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I do these are problematic, but look at the text of the sense motive skill entry. It can give you a hunch something is wrong or a person is not trustworthy. But it isn't a lie detecting skill.