How do other DMs adjudicate Insight?
I understand the intent, but it feels that being able to detect lies is potentially problematic. I'm looking for thoughts on:
- How do you determine the DC for such a check?
- Do you make it harder based on the target's race? Would a dwarf have a harder time telling if an elf is lying than if it was another dwarf?
- What about monsters? Who could tell if a beholder was lying?
- I'm tempted to roll all such checks as contests vs. the opponent's Deception skill. Thoughts on that approach?
Looking for your input. Thanks.
If someone is actively trying to deceive the character (like a thief using a lie to lure a mark into an alley for a less visible robbery), I used a check of that creature's Charisma (deception) against a passive Wisdom (insight) check for the character.
If a player declares an action with an uncertain outcome (like that they are trying to get a sense of what a monster - talkative or otherwise - is actually up to when it isn't obvious) then I have them make a Wisdom (insight) roll, either against a DC based on the difficulty I feel is appropriate (the further from humanoid a creature is in anatomy and the expressiveness of that anatomy, the more difficult it is to read the body language and expressions.... so nearly humanoid stuff is easiest, things like beholders with normal-ish mouths and eyes are the middle range, and the featureless void of a doppleganger's natural form is an example of the more difficult end of the spectrum), or against a Charisma (deception) roll if the creature's ability at deception is as or more significant than the inherent difficulty of reading it's expressions/body language (so if the character is one of the normal PC races, other creatures of the various PC races would roll deception - or one doppleganger trying to lie to another would be an opposed roll).
I would say that a character discovering that an NPC is lying is not problematic in the least.
When the player's stated approach doesn't result in certain success or certain failure, roll an opposed Deception check for the NPC. The result is the DC. Or just say what the DC is, somewhere between 5 and 20, depending on the circumstances. If there is established context in the campaign world about a particular race being good or poor liars, then it would be reasonable to adjust the DC or impart advantage or disadvantage. Same goes for monsters.
The important thing to remember is that just because a player wants to try and figure out if an NPC is lying doesn't mean that's always an Insight check - it might be no check at all because the action simply succeeds or fails. Further, when a player fails the Insight check, that doesn't mean that the character believes the lie. It only means that the character is unable to confirm that the NPC is being untrustworthy.
iserith wrote:
I don't usually require a roll unless the PC has no reason to know if the creature is lying or not. If the PC has information that she can use to form an opinion on whether the lie is true or not, I try to handle it with roleplaying instead of dice.
One exception to that rule is people the PCs have known for a while. If the PC has known the liar for a while, the PC should get a chance to tell if that person is lying even if I would otherwise handle it with RP instead of dice. I roll for the liar without calling for a roll from the player and compare it to a number as if the player had rolled a 10.
The same way you adjudicate everything else.
Barky wrote:
I dont. The skill Insight is one of the tools Iuse to adjudicate the player character's actions, non of which includes explicit declaration of skill usage. Regarding DC I think opposed check is the way to go.
How does this work by obscuring persuasion and deception.
This makes sense in the medieveal millieu of DnD. A goblin who knows the truth about the necromancer's plans and turn traitor, is trying to persuade the players, you can tell players that the Goblin is either trying to persuade you or deceive you, then roll, and they don't know if the result is persuasion or Insight. Then when you say you trust them, they don't know if their insight was the active (determine that the goblin is lying) or the passive (determine if the goblin can plead his case vs. insight).
In my experience lying to the characters and instantly giving them roll for insight is fast gateway to metgaming. So I don’t really know how to handle this situation well.
I was in games, where GM just went with npc, said something, rolled behind the screen for deception, and than proceed to tell the player “big roll – sorry, your character believes it – act this way”. Well, he did all social confrontation like that “ups, big roll, you are seduced” “oh, big roll, you instantly trust him, don’t mind the dagger in your back.”
To this day I’m not really sure how to handle situation when NPC want to influence a player.
TrueManiek wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
iserith wrote:
Players on my table want to roll for insight after almost EVERY scentence. Even from a LG god they want to know if it says the truth...
EitherI roll for a deception check or take an automatic DC15 for normal and DC20 for hard, depending if the NPC has "proficiency" on the matter.
Monsters are harder to check, a character doesn't know how the moster behaves normally, so they can't mirrot it's current behaviour to previouse behaviour.
Recently discussed it with the party and now i do roll behind a screen to counter the meta thinking: "O wait, you fail to see if he/she is truthfull becouse of a low roll? then I try to! And I try to! And I try to!"
Our group has never directly used insight as a definite lie detector, instead we use insight as a motivation detector. e.g.
DM: The courtier tells you that the Prince takes a stroll around the gardens every night without his guards and it'a the only time he's away from them.
Player: I study the courtiers face and try and see if he's setting us up.
DM: Roll Wisdom (Insight).
Player: *rolls high*
DM: You can hear the hatred in his voice, he certainly has no love for the Prince, but there is also a very immediate fear that doesn't seem to correlate with a fear of being caught.
Similarly, we'd phrase things like:
DM: From the slow pace of his speech and the pauses between words you get the impression that he's choosing his words carefully.
DM: There seems to be little reason for X to help you, especially given his reputation, which makes you wonder what he's getting out of it.
DM: The calmness in his voice is at odds with his furtive, urgent body language.
So, we don't use Insight as a straight forward lie detector, we use it as a tool for discerning motivation or emotional state.
TrueManiek wrote:
CFK wrote:
Glimjack wrote:
TrueManiek wrote:
CFK wrote:
I so want to play a PC called Lactose the Intolerant now. 
Never tell a player they believe or know that an NPC is or isnt lying. What you want to do is use uncertianties.
"You cant tell."
"His breathing is uneven, it could be because he told a big lie"
"he seems open and doesnt have any signs of lying"
these are the easiest ways to give answers that confer the result, but isnt absolute. Its one of the few ways Ive found to handle those type of social interactions well.
I rely on passives for most interactions. I think there's a real pitfall to treating every conversation the characters engage in as social combat. Calling for a check or contest should only be done when the stakes are high (e.g. interrogations, negotiations, trials, etc).
Glimjack's use of Insight as a motivation detector is great advice!
