Should Insight be able to determine if an NPC is lying?

[Oofta]

I very much agree with the part in bold, and I think it’s one reason it’s so hard to handle lying well in an RPG. So hard, that although I rail against using Insight as a binary lie detector test, I understand the appeal: all the other options are either really hard to do well (requiring either fast thinking or preparation time...or both) or they are generally transparent, nudge-nudge-wink-wink euphemisms for binary lie detection.

So, yeah, I get just wanting to avoid the whole thing with a simple, mechanical solution.

A point I didn't make clear is that even with the responses in my example, there's no guarantee that Franky is lying. If I go back to my example

PC: "Where were you last night after dusk."
Franky: "I was at home as usual." [he's being sarcastic and condescending]
PC: "Any witnesses?"
Franky: "Nah, I live alone. Nobody but me." [shift's a bit in his seat, this question makes him uncomfortable]
PC: "So you know nothing about Jimmy the Nose dying?"
Franky: "Jimmy's dead? No I didn't know that" [not really surprised]​

Maybe Franky is just a sarcastic SOB who doesn't like being questioned. His girlfriend just dumped him, but he doesn't like to share that so it makes him uncomfortable. He didn't know that Jimmy was dead but he's not surprised because Jimmy pissed off someone he shouldn't have. On the other hand maybe Franky killed Jimmy which would also be a perfectly logical reason for his behavior.

Depending on the scene and what I want people to know I may just act this out broadly enough that anyone should be able to pick up on it. But if I view Franky as simply being someone who habitually lies and tries to hide his true intentions out of habit then an insight check might be appropriate.

So like I said earlier, insight is not a lie detector or mind reader but in my games it can give clues to attitude and reactions.

 

[Roadkill101]

Yes. It's my job as GM to inform the player to what degree their character feels that the subject in question is answering dishonestly if at all, if a use of the skill is called.

 

[D1Tremere]

For a lot of people this crosses the line of agency.

This is a problem endemic to role playing games in general. If an in game deception occurs, an in game response that is separate from the player must also occur. The player is still free to determine how their character would act on their revelation.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is a problem endemic to role playing games in general. If an in game deception occurs, an in game response that is separate from the player must also occur. The player is still free to determine how their character would act on their revelation.

Yes, that's one possible way of playing RPGs.

Another way is that the player is free to decide what their character thinks and believes.

Although, I suppose that if a player is required to roleplay a certain thing if they fail an Insight check, that makes a handy consequence to rolling the dice:

Player: "I think he's lying...I study his face and listen to his tone of voice to see if he seems nervous."
DM: "That will require an Insight check, but if you fail that means your character will have to abide by whatever conclusion I dictate."
Player: "Hells no...I'll just stick with my instinct that he's lying, TYVM."

(I'm being facetious, but to me this illustrates the fallacy of trying to tell players what their characters believe.)

 

[Hussar]

Yes, that's one possible way of playing RPGs.

Another way is that the player is free to decide what their character thinks and believes.

Although, I suppose that if a player is required to roleplay a certain thing if they fail an Insight check, that makes a handy consequence to rolling the dice:

Player: "I think he's lying...I study his face and listen to his tone of voice to see if he seems nervous."
DM: "That will require an Insight check, but if you fail that means your character will have to abide by whatever conclusion I dictate."
Player: "Hells no...I'll just stick with my instinct that he's lying, TYVM."

(I'm being facetious, but to me this illustrates the fallacy of trying to tell players what their characters believe.)

The orc stabs you for 15 damage. It hurts. Oh, noes, the DM is trampling on my character.
[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], you claimed that this was "a lot" of people. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, "a lot of people you happen to play with", because, for me and mine, over the years that I've played, no one would ever have a problem with "you think he's telling the truth" or "you think he's lying."

The skill specifically states it allows the user to tell if someone is lying. That's pretty much the end of the conversation right there isn't it? All the cheese weaseling in the world doesn't change what's right there, on the page.

I mean, using your example:

Player: "I think he's lying...I study his face and listen to his tone of voice to see if he seems nervous."
DM: Gimme an Insight check. 15? You think he's telling the truth.
Player: .... hrm. Well, either he's a really good liar, or he's telling the truth. Let's go with ...

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Any player who honestly bitched about this can find another table. I simply do not have the time or patience to deal with this. Get on with it instead of screwing around trying to not say what the game tells you to say. Do you similarly tell players that they are and are not hit in combat? Do they break and not break open the door with an Athletics check? Maybe they only think they climbed that wall.

Do DM's honestly waste their player's time with this? Yuck.

 

[5ekyu]

I just thought I'd throw in my 2 coppers on why I allow people to ask for insight, use passive insights or ask for checks with an example. As far as how we get to the point of relying on a PC skill instead of player skill, I really don't care. To me that's just a stylistic choice. My point is that I think skills like insight can be used to give a lot of hints and clues, it can add depth and richness to the game that doesn't rely on DM or player skills.

Scenario:
The group is questioning a suspect in a who-dunnit. Think typical police procedural with the cops interviewing the suspect, Franky Nine Fingers.

PC: "Where were you last night after dusk."
Franky: "I was at home as usual."
PC: "Any witnesses?"
Franky: "Nah, I live alone. Nobody but me."
PC: "So you know nothing about Jimmy the Nose dying?"
Franky: "Jimmy's dead? No I didn't know that"​

So short, but simple (the conversation would obviously continue). From the text, there's no possible way of knowing whether or not Franky is on the up-and-up. So let's add in some details you could pick up with insight. But let's say Franky has a decent deception skill and whether or not the PC should pick up on subtle details is not certain

PC: "Where were you last night after dusk."
Franky: "I was at home as usual." [he's being sarcastic and condescending]
PC: "Any witnesses?"
Franky: "Nah, I live alone. Nobody but me." [shift's a bit in his seat, this question makes him uncomfortable]
PC: "So you know nothing about Jimmy the Nose dying?"
Franky: "Jimmy's dead? No I didn't know that" [not really surprised]​

It's obvious our Franky boy is hiding something, questioning/actions ensue. He's probably now suspect #1.

PC: "Where were you last night after dusk."
Franky: "I was at home as usual." [he paused slightly after "at home", is he hiding something?]
PC: "Any witnesses?"
Franky: "Nah, I live alone. Nobody but me." [Franky glanced nervously at the captain of the guard. Why?]
PC: "So you know nothing about Jimmy the Nose dying?"
Franky: "Jimmy's dead? No I didn't know that" [Seems to be honestly surprised]​

What's going on? He may not be a primary suspect, but there's something fishy. Maybe the captain of the guard knows something? Maybe he visited Franky? Or maybe Franky is being 100% honest but suspects that someone is watching his house.

Or any number of other variations. Both of these scenarios are incredibly common fictional tropes. The point is that subtle queues may or may not be picked up. It shouldn't be up to the DM to act this out or the players to pick up on it because then it's not the PCs doing the questioning, it's the players. I am not my PC.

Agree completly.

I will add tho.

I start with the speaker's deception and passive scores for PCs yo frsme the scene. Then if they make active checks, bring in things to give them advsntsge, they can get some clues on top of the baseline.

Finally, I always keep in mind that not meeting the DC does not mean not getting anything. It can mean setback plus some stuff.

So, tons of richness driven by *character* but navigated by player.

 

[5ekyu]

The character doesn't use insight though.

They do a thing. Insight might be involved in resolving their action.

I'd be fine with passive insight to tell whether something isn't quite right, just like passive perception.

"I roll insight to tell if they are lying" goes against how 5e is designed.

1. There is no mechanism to stop the player from rolling until they get a 20 so you're essentially playing a game with everyone having passive insight scores of 20+ rather than 10+.
2. Rolls should be exciting and pivotal. Having the party make ability checks every time someone talks to them is not.
3. Players describe what their characters are doing in 5e. They don't declare that they are using X skill.

On your #1 There are several. First off the vote definition of not meeting DC on ability checks includes some progress with setback. So, a result of "definitely he seems sketchy right off" followed by any number of things that stop the discussion as setback are right there for you. Second, the DMG basically gives a number of ways to deal with multiple checks and one of them includes essentially the GM ssying no, if circumstances warrant.

On your #2 - how do you jump from players trying to have their characters use their stuff to rolling dice everytime they have someone talk? We been playing with "using insight forever, easily 90% of the talks font get insight calls. Imx much like the rules suggest, players dont tend to waste time on it unless it seems important. (BTW once you establish progress with setback as an option - this gets even more true.)

On your #3 "my character uses insight his to see if they are lying" and easily a dozen other ways **is** describing what his character is doing. It communicates enough from player to GM for the question to be resolved. The rules of 5e do not dictate to the players and DMs precisely and strictly how they are to communicate the info they want between each other.

 

[5ekyu]

For a lot of people this crosses the line of agency.

In my game, I directly add the die roll into the fiction as elements that could lead to confidence in the outcome or not or even a strong lack of confidence. The player is then free to use that in their in-character judgements or not - after all an overconfident PC might never think he was wrong, at first - their choice.

This shows in two ways...
First I tend to include narrative bits like bad environmental hits or interruptions at key moments to show when things are bad. Can also describe the target as all over the place, frantic, etc.

Second, the player is given explicit permission in core house ruling posted before gsme started to include game die rolls as part of their in character fiction and thinking. So even if my description doesnt do a 3 justice, they have the fie.

But, key is, they dont get told "success" they just see results and since failed to meet DC can be progress with setback that becomes an issue too.

So, whether or not they believe they succeeded is on thrm to decide from the results, not me to tell thrm.

 

[akr71]

No. You can use an Insight check to see if your character believes the target is telling the truth. It is not an instant polygraph test, nor are polygraph test foolproof.

My character believing the NPC is lying is far different than definitive proof.
"Your Honor, the defendant rolled a 15 on his Deception check versus my client's 22 Insight check. The defendant was clearly lying!"

 

[Guest 6801328]

The orc stabs you for 15 damage. It hurts. Oh, noes, the DM is trampling on my character.

@Elfcrusher, you claimed that this was "a lot" of people. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, "a lot of people you happen to play with", because, for me and mine, over the years that I've played, no one would ever have a problem with "you think he's telling the truth" or "you think he's lying."

The skill specifically states it allows the user to tell if someone is lying. That's pretty much the end of the conversation right there isn't it? All the cheese weaseling in the world doesn't change what's right there, on the page.

I mean, using your example:

Player: "I think he's lying...I study his face and listen to his tone of voice to see if he seems nervous."
DM: Gimme an Insight check. 15? You think he's telling the truth.
Player: .... hrm. Well, either he's a really good liar, or he's telling the truth. Let's go with ...

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Any player who honestly bitched about this can find another table. I simply do not have the time or patience to deal with this. Get on with it instead of screwing around trying to not say what the game tells you to say. Do you similarly tell players that they are and are not hit in combat? Do they break and not break open the door with an Athletics check? Maybe they only think they climbed that wall.

Do DM's honestly waste their player's time with this? Yuck.

I either mis-interpreted what you wrote the first time, or you (seem to be) backing off from your claim a little bit. I thought you meant that "you believe he is telling the truth" translates to "and you must roleplay it that way; your character believes this NPC, even if you still have suspicions".

So, yes, I'm one of the very few people who gets touchy about DMs saying "you believe..." because even though it's usually meant innocuously, the actual language crosses the line. But I do think there are lots of people out there (many of this forum) who think it's badwrongfun for the DM to dictate what a PC thinks and feels and believes.