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

[D1Tremere]

Can you give an example, because I don’t think we are disagreeing.

“The NPC has a bead of sweat running down his forehead even though it’s cold” is evidence that is left up to the player to interpret. I think that’s fine.

EDIT: To rephrase, I think the right approach is to give the player evidence to interpret, but not provide the interpretation.

I am a bit late, and so I have missed what looks like a rather nasty turn to what started off as a nice topic.
That said, I wanted to address Elfcrusher's analysis of my statements.

You are correct in that I am stating a character's perceptions of the situation should be dictated for the player once it becomes a rules arbitrated scenario. I can understand that some people do not prefer this, but that is what rules do. They impose an external system on the individual. A player who, in your example, is given evidence to interpret is then calling upon the players faculties of their real world environment. This is not a good way to resolve situations involving in game consequences in my opinion.
The skill is a rule, it provides an in game effect. Giving a player clues to interpret could result in their not being able to perform as their characters would because they lack sufficient real world feedback, or it could result in their using real world feedback, such as knowledge of the DM's non-verbal communications to make their character decision. The use of dice and rule exists to mediate between real world wishes and in character reality.
To put it another way, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own reality. Rules often dictate reality for the character and a player often shapes their opinions or beliefs around that reality. A player who doesn't want their character's beliefs about intentions of an NPC dictated for them can always decide for their character without invoking rules, but once you roll the dice it would be unfair for them to have no consequences just because you may not like the results.

"My character thinks this NPC is lying" - perfectly fine in my opinion.
"I want to try to read this NPCs intentions with a skill but then ignore the results" - not cool in my book.

 

[pemerton]

You are correct in that I am stating a character's perceptions of the situation should be dictated for the player once it becomes a rules arbitrated scenario.

<snip>

The skill is a rule, it provides an in game effect. Giving a player clues to interpret could result in their not being able to perform as their characters would because they lack sufficient real world feedback, or it could result in their using real world feedback, such as knowledge of the DM's non-verbal communications to make their character decision. The use of dice and rule exists to mediate between real world wishes and in character reality.

<snip>

"My character thinks this NPC is lying" - perfectly fine in my opinion.
"I want to try to read this NPCs intentions with a skill but then ignore the results" - not cool in my book.

A question prompted by this:

Suppose a player is playing Battle Master fighter. The rules establish this character as a tactical expert; but suppose the player - either deliberately, or because s/he can't do any better - plays the PC as tactically incompetent. Does this create an issue for you?

And vice versa: what if the PC is (say) a bard with modest INT and nothing in his/her backstory to suggest tactical acumen, but the player is a strong wargamer and plays his/her PC with very good tactical skill (eg optimising damage per spell slot spent, making excellent risk/reward choices in regards to targetting and battlefield positioning, etc). Do you regard that as cheating?

 

[pemerton]

I know that D&D 4e said outright players will do this and DMs should accept it.

It also says that players need to state an approach and goal. 4e DMG pp 74-75:

Sometimes, a player tells you, "I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us is in his best interest." That’s great - the player has told you what she’s doing and what skill she’s using to do it. Other times, a player will say, "I want to make a Diplomacy check." In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill. Sometimes, characters do the opposite: "I want to scare the duke into helping us." It’s up to you, then, to decide which skill the character is using and call for the appropriate check. . . .

t’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, "Can I use Diplomacy?”" you should ask what exactly the character might be doing to help the party survive in the uninhabited sandy wastes by using that skill. Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.​

I think this shows that 4e is very much in the camp of frame checks and then roll dice to find out how the fiction evolves at key moments of dramatic uncertainty. And the framing is to be undertaken by both player and GM, with the GM haveing ultimate responsibility for managing the coherence of the fiction and ensuring that the framing respects this.

I mention this not to contest your account of how you run 5e, nor what approach 5e might best be suited for, but rather to show that goal and approach (or, as I prefer under the influence of Luke Crane, intnt and task) has currency beyond your particular use of it - which makes it even more appealling!

 

[iserith]

It also says that players need to state an approach and goal. 4e DMG pp 74-75:

Sometimes, a player tells you, "I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us is in his best interest." That’s great - the player has told you what she’s doing and what skill she’s using to do it. Other times, a player will say, "I want to make a Diplomacy check." In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill. Sometimes, characters do the opposite: "I want to scare the duke into helping us." It’s up to you, then, to decide which skill the character is using and call for the appropriate check. . . .

t’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, "Can I use Diplomacy?”" you should ask what exactly the character might be doing to help the party survive in the uninhabited sandy wastes by using that skill. Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.​

I think this shows that 4e is very much in the camp of frame checks and then roll dice to find out how the fiction evolves at key moments of dramatic uncertainty. And the framing is to be undertaken by both player and GM, with the GM haveing ultimate responsibility for managing the coherence of the fiction and ensuring that the framing respects this.

I mention this not to contest your account of how you run 5e, nor what approach 5e might best be suited for, but rather to show that goal and approach (or, as I prefer under the influence of Luke Crane, intnt and task) has currency beyond your particular use of it - which makes it even more appealling!

Sure, whereas D&D 5e divorces tasks and checks in a way that D&D 4e does not. A player describes tasks rather than "uses skills." This is the issue [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] is having trying to communicate with another poster in the current similar thread.

To add to the differences, D&D 4e also says "All DCs assume acting in situations that are far from mundane; the DM should call for checks only in dramatic situations." This backs up the idea "frame checks and then roll dice to find out how the fiction evolves at key moments of dramatic uncertainty." D&D 5e does not support players calling for checks at all, plus "dramatic uncertainty" is framed as "uncertain outcome and meaningful consequence for failure." These may seem like minor differences, but in play, a D&D 4e game and a D&D 5e game "by the book" will look different in many ways outside of different mechanics. Unless of course one is playing D&D 5e like some other game.

(As an aside, here's a weird thing I noticed about D&D 4e back in the day. What I quoted above - the "dramatic situations" line - was removed from D&D Essentials Rules Compendium. I have no idea why because the "dramatic situations" line was, to my mind at that time, something that made it markedly different from D&D 3e with regard to handling skills.)

 

[pemerton]

As an aside, here's a weird thing I noticed about D&D 4e back in the day. What I quoted above - the "dramatic situations" line - was removed from D&D Essentials Rules Compendium. I have no idea why because the "dramatic situations" line was, to my mind at that time, something that made it markedly different from D&D 3e with regard to handling skills.

The Rules Compendium is pretty good as a mechanical restatement, but as far as principles are concerned has several retrogade elements. Besides the one you mention, compare it's account of the GM function compared to the PHB: there's a significant lurch back towards advocacy of railroading.

 

[Charlaquin]

(As an aside, here's a weird thing I noticed about D&D 4e back in the day. What I quoted above - the "dramatic situations" line - was removed from D&D Essentials Rules Compendium. I have no idea why because the "dramatic situations" line was, to my mind at that time, something that made it markedly different from D&D 3e with regard to handling skills.)

I think this was one among a number of steps Essentials made to try to win back 3.5 fans. Which seems like kind of a strange one, considering most folks don’t actually read those parts of the books anyway, but still.

 

[iserith]

I think this was one among a number of steps Essentials made to try to win back 3.5 fans. Which seems like kind of a strange one, considering most folks don’t actually read those parts of the books anyway, but still.

Yeah, up to that point, I was using lines like that to show how D&D 3.Xe and D&D 4e were different and that problems can occur when we run them the same way. (Kind of a familiar argument, eh?)

 

[iserith]

The Rules Compendium is pretty good as a mechanical restatement, but as far as principles are concerned has several retrogade elements. Besides the one you mention, compare it's account of the GM function compared to the PHB: there's a significant lurch back towards advocacy of railroading.

Another aside - I think Rules Compendium was when they finally presented skill challenges correctly. But by then, a ton of people were already turned off of skill challenges. Which I found to be an absolute shame because I love that mechanic (for D&D 4e).

 

[Charlaquin]

Another aside - I think Rules Compendium was when they finally presented skill challenges correctly. But by then, a ton of people were already turned off of skill challenges. Which I found to be an absolute shame because I love that mechanic (for D&D 4e).

I’ll admit, I never cared for skill challenges. It probably didn’t help that my DM at the time didn’t run them well. But still, I felt like at their best they just looked like normal play. I feel like a mechanic that feels awful when done poorly and doesn’t feel notably different when done well is more trouble than it’s worth.

 

[Hriston]

Can you say a bit more about how you would narrate this outcome?

What I've got in mind is the following: would you narration distinguish between an absence of clues because the NPC is inscrutable and an absence of clues because the NPC is not lying?

I think they would both be some variation of “You don’t notice any evidence that [NPC] is lying”, but I also think it would come out in the initial description of the inscrutable character that s/he can’t be read, so it wouldn’t come as a surprise. On the other hand, I don’t think I’ve ever used an “inscrutable” NPC and agree that overuse of such would amount to a hosing.