Persuasion, Deception and Insight

[Ninja_Prawn]

Quick question (apologies if this has come up before):

If an NPC is telling the truth and their Persuasion roll beats a PC's Insight, does the player get told that the NPC seems to be telling the truth? If it was the other way around, the NPC would be successfully persuaded, but when it's the PC, I start to wonder if their low Insight roll means they have failed to read the NPC?

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Quick question (apologies if this has come up before):

If an NPC is telling the truth and their Persuasion roll beats a PC's Insight, does the player get told that the NPC seems to be telling the truth? If it was the other way around, the NPC would be successfully persuaded, but when it's the PC, I start to wonder if their low Insight roll means they have failed to read the NPC?

In this case, I'm not sure why the PC is even rolling Insight, since they're not lying, but rolling under someone's persuasion usually means you find their arguments convincing, not that you misread them as lying when they were being honest. Save that kind of thing for [optional] critical failures.

[Strill]

Quick question (apologies if this has come up before):

If an NPC is telling the truth and their Persuasion roll beats a PC's Insight, does the player get told that the NPC seems to be telling the truth? No. The PC gets told that they don't notice anything about him that would indicate he's insincere or untrustworthy.

If it was the other way around, the NPC would be successfully persuaded, but when it's the PC, I start to wonder if their low Insight roll means they have failed to read the NPC?
Insight allows you to notice aspects of language, posture, and gestures which might hint at a character's true intent. For example, it would allow you to notice that someone squints their right eye whenever they're not telling the whole truth, or that they seem to be awfully festive for someone whose husband just died. It doesn't just directly tell you what the other person's intent is, however. The player has to figure that out on their own.

[Giant2005]

The Insight roll is used to account for the character being more insightful than the player and considering this was a failed roll, it turns out that in this instance the character was not more insightful than the player. So simply tell the player to make his own judgement - whatever he believes is also what his character believes.

[Ninja_Prawn]

In this case, I'm not sure why the PC is even rolling Insight.

Short answer: Because it's PbP and they had already rolled before I saw the post.

I have to give them an 'impression' of the NPC, and if I go in the OOC and say "by the way, you didn't need to roll for that; your roll had no bearing on the outcome", it would seem... I don't know. I would have rolled, if I were them.

But really, if a PC is suspicious, they could try their insight at any time. Does that mean they can always tell if someone is telling the truth and there is only doubt if they lose against Deception?

And if I tell them their PC doesn't notice anything more than what the player could get, that disregards the fact that the NPC is being really persuasive. Is it best to set a DC for insight rather than using an opposed roll?

[Strill]

And if I tell them their PC doesn't notice anything more than what the player could get, that disregards the fact that the NPC is being really persuasive. Is it best to set a DC for insight rather than using an opposed roll?
Persuasion is there for presenting your case well, and putting yourself in a good light. It's not mind control, and it won't make someone do something they're adamantly opposed to doing.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Persuasion is there for presenting your case well, and putting yourself in a good light. It's not mind control, and it won't make someone do something they're adamantly opposed to doing.

Long story: That's not what the NPC is trying to do. He's just trying to be honest and friendly to a PC whom he believes is a little girl. For some reason, she thinks he's lying to her (it's probably his mannerisms, so that's fine). She rolled 11, he rolled 18, but if I left the roll as a decoy and made the DC to read him equal to his passive Charisma, it would be 10.

So... that's how we ended up here.

[NNescio]

Long story: That's not what the NPC is trying to do. He's just trying to be honest and friendly to a PC whom he believes is a little girl. For some reason, she thinks he's lying to her (it's probably his mannerisms, so that's fine). She rolled 11, he rolled 18, but if I left the roll as a decoy and made the DC to read him equal to his passive Charisma, it would be 10.

So... that's how we ended up here.

Generally, you don't need to roll Persuasion against PCs. Roleplay the NPC and make the argument. The player decides whether to agree or disagree based on what he thinks his character would do.

If the player suspects the NPC is lying (or you want to remind them that the NPC could be lying), the player gets to roll Insight. If the NPC is lying, then it is an opposed skill check between the PC's Insight and the NPC's Deception (If the players are prone to metagaming, preroll Deception in secret). If the NPC is telling the truth, then it's the PC's Insight roll versus some DC you set. I would use a tiered list of DCs, like below:

DC 5: He's probably telling the truth, I guess?
DC 10: He seems to be telling the truth.
DC 15: He's telling the truth.
DC 20: He's definitely, definitely telling the truth. You're dead sure of it.

Then the PC reacts accordingly, in-character. If he still wants to stab the NPC, fine, but there may be consequences.

You're free to set the DCs to whatever you wish. If it is completely obvious that the NPC is telling the truth, or for some reason, you want to avoid slowing down the narrative, just have them automatically succeed. "I roll Insi— No, you don't need to. You can tell he's telling the truth."

Give a stern talking to if a player tries to roll Insight versus everything. It's sort of like in previous editions, where some players would roll to disbelieve illusions all the time.

"I roll to disbelieve the dragon! I roll to disbelieve the floor! I roll to disbelieve the ceiling! I roll to disbelieve the chair!"

Generally, only have players roll Insight if their characters have a reason to be suspicious, or if the NPC is lying (or concealing/misrepresenting certain facts) from them.

[Ninja_Prawn]

-snip-

Sounds like good advice. Thank you!

Thankfully there's not much risk of anyone getting stabbed here. At least I hope not...

[Alerad]

I don't think you need to contest Persuasion and Insight. If characters want to know if the NPC is lying, set some DC like 10 + the NPC's Cha modifier. No bonus from Deception since the NPC isn't actually trying to lie or hide information. If the party can't beat this passive DC just tell them they can't read the NPC. That should be enough.

It's a different matter with the Persuasion, I don't know what the outcome should be, but you can again test it against a passive DC, like 10 + the party's best Int modifier. Or worst. Or 20 - the best modifier. Depends on many things. Sometimes smart people are more easily convinced when the explanation makes sense. In any case it's up to the party to make a decision so tell them the NPC makes a lot of sense. Throw some in-game ideas based on that to make it sound more convincing.

[NNescio]

I don't think you need to contest Persuasion and Insight. If characters want to know if the NPC is lying, set some DC like 10 + the NPC's Cha modifier. No bonus from Deception since the NPC isn't actually trying to lie or hide information. If the party can't beat this passive DC just tell them they can't read the NPC. That should be enough.

Wouldn't that mean more charismatic NPCs have greater difficulties convincing other people that they are telling the truth?


It's a different matter with the Persuasion, I don't know what the outcome should be, but you can again test it against a passive DC, like 10 + the party's best Int modifier. Or worst. Or 20 - the best modifier. Depends on many things. Sometimes smart people are more easily convinced when the explanation makes sense. In any case it's up to the party to make a decision so tell them the NPC makes a lot of sense. Throw some in-game ideas based on that to make it sound more convincing.

Don't let NPCs roll Persuasion against the players. That can result in the equivalent of "Nope, I don't care what you think, your characters believe the NPC because he's just that convincing." That's sort of like taking away player agency, especially since you aren't using spells.

If you want to work Persuasion in, I suggest the following houserule: have the NPC roll persuasion, apply all relevant modifiers, and then subtract the net result from 20 (or 25). Minimum 0, of course. Treat this result as the DC, and have the player roll sense motive against it.

Grant disadvantage or advantage depending on how believable the story is (and other circumstantial factors) to either the PC or the NPC.

This has the added bonus of not revealing information to the players the NPC is lying (Generally speaking, having the players roll Insight when they are talking to NPCs is a dead giveaway that they are lying (or deceiving them in some fashion, like concealing information), but with this houserule in play, they might be telling the truth). Yes, yes, players are not expected to metagame, and to separate player knowledge from character knowledge, but even the best of roleplayers may have their decisions colored by the presence of what they think is a Deception/Bluff roll (whether by overcompensating in one direction or the other. )

Edit:
Sounds like good advice. Thank you!

Thankfully there's not much risk of anyone getting stabbed here. At least I hope not...

You're welcome.

[Person_Man]

The Insight roll is used to account for the character being more insightful than the player and considering this was a failed roll, it turns out that in this instance the character was not more insightful than the player. So simply tell the player to make his own judgement - whatever he believes is also what his character believes.

+1 to this.

Also, unless they're being magically compelled, players should never be told how to roleplay their characters. Social Skills exist simply to help players who may not be particularly insightful, eloquent, deceptive, intimidating. (Or to penalize players for dumpiing Wisdom and/or Charisma). The results of any social Skill check are simply an indicator light that tells the player what their character perceives, not a strait jacket that binds their actions.

[Joe the Rat]

Ideally, players should be asking questions, and DMs should be asking for rolls as necessary. But we know that doesn't work out. I have a player that's always roll first, ask for reasons and results later. In pBp, I can see benefit to declare and roll provided the necessary roll is obvious. The big one for me is knowledge rolls. Asking "what do I know about this" prompts "Give me an X check" - because those ancient runes might actually be a History check (it's a dead language used by some empire) or a Religion check (It's a prayer to some forgotten deity) rather than an Arcana check (spell runes). "I Roll X" usually results in roll the right damn thing, or if I'm being slightly deceptive, use the die roll with the appropriate proficiency for the relevant bit of info.

Back on topic, the important thing here is that a roll doesn't need a counter-roll. Just because they rolled doesn't mean you have to contest it with something. If he's being honest and helpful, he's being honest and helpful. Insight reveals... he's seems to be honest and helpful. It's the same as checking for traps. Let the players roll, even if there's nothing there. Investigation for secret doors? If they aren't there, they aren't there, but they should still roll to search. Unless you are really big into open rolls, you can make this a "behind the screen" sort of affair. Was it against a set DC, a counter-roll, or a roll that means nothing? From the player's side, it shouldn't be readily obvious.

Regarding rolls on players: Barring certain magical effects, PCs have final control of their character's behavior. Successful deception means his story seems true, or that the speaker believes what they are saying (Sincerity... sometimes I miss L5R). Successful Persuasion means it's a good sounding argument (or at least a good firebrand oratory). Successful Intimidation... can be tricky. Outside of combat usage, I leave it at "seems scary / seems like he would follow through on those threats." It's up to the player to decide if it's worth the risk.

[DivisibleByZero]

This is exactly why I use passive scores for almost everything unless the player actively tells me that they're attempting to do something.
I have a list of all their saves and skills and whatnot. I use that and no dice are rolled, so no metagaming happens.
If they specifically tell me they're attempting something, they always roll, even if there is no need to.
This way, not rolling doesn't mean nothing's happening, and a roll doesn't mean that something definitely is.
A bad roll does not tell them that they failed, because there may not have been a need to roll in the first place.
In this case, "You can't get a read on him," or "you think he's lying/telling the truth" don't cause the players to instantly assume they failed the roll. They then think whatever they were going to think in the first place.

[CNagy]

I never use Persuasion with an NPC unless it is toward another NPC--and those rolls almost never come up (except behind the scenes, as one of a host of mechanics to make it seem like the setting is alive in places other than where the players are.)

I try to have at least a line of notes regarding NPCs for use with regards to Insight. Insight literally gives you insight into who you are dealing with--sometimes that means you catch a hint at what is motivating them, sometimes you can figure out that they are desperate about something, or that something isn't adding up between what they are saying and the way they are presenting themselves (that posture is a little too perfect for an innkeeper, that guard wears his sword uncomfortably, etc). Insight can tell you when they might be hiding something, even if they aren't necessarily lying to you. And of course when they are lying to you, it's contested with Deception. I leave the results to basically "he seems sincere enough" and "you have some doubts about his sincerity."

[DivisibleByZero]

This is exactly why I use passive scores for almost everything unless the player actively tells me that they're attempting to do something.
I have a list of all their saves and skills and whatnot. I use that and no dice are rolled, so no metagaming happens.
If they specifically tell me they're attempting something, they always roll, even if there is no need to.
This way, not rolling doesn't mean nothing's happening, and a roll doesn't mean that something definitely is.
A bad roll does not tell them that they failed, because there may not have been a need to roll in the first place.
In this case, "You can't get a read on him," or "you think he's lying/telling the truth" don't cause the players to instantly assume they failed the roll. They then think whatever they were going to think in the first place.

I'll point out that I also roll a bunch of d20s and record them before the session.
Any time I want to roll a secret check or saving throw or whatever for a PC (or attack roll or check for an NPC), instead of rolling a die and letting he table know I did so, I use the first unused d20 roll on the list. That way the secret roll remains secret.
Using these two methods together works very, very well

<secret Wis save fails> "Logan, you OK? You're acting weird today."

[Sigreid]

I would tell the player that the NPC seems completely sincere. It won't give any insight into what is true, only what the NPC believes to be true.

[Vogonjeltz]

I would use a tiered list of DCs, like below:

DC 5: He's probably telling the truth, I guess?
DC 10: He seems to be telling the truth.
DC 15: He's telling the truth.
DC 20: He's definitely, definitely telling the truth. You're dead sure of it.

I wouldn't vary my response based on anything. Simple success/failure:

If the NPC is telling the truth - Success: You think they're telling the truth; Failure: You think they're telling the truth.
If the NPC is lying - Success: You think they're lying; Failure: You think they're telling the truth.

[ChelseaNH]

I agree that this shouldn't be a contest, so forget the Persuasion score. An 11 for Insight is just an average-ish roll, so you just get average-ish results. Which is to say, "*shrug* I dunno if he's lying or not."

Now, if the character had rolled a 1, then it would be time to talk what kind of wrong impression he got.