How to deal with Insight

[dropbear8mybaby]

Ever since the Insight skill was introduced, originally as Sense Motive, I've taken issue with the binary nature of the skill check in regards to determining whether a person is lying or telling the truth. It forces me as a DM to essentially give players a very easy lie-detection spell that only requires proficiency in a skill. Few creatures are trained in Deception and they tend to be the ones with an already decent Charisma score, so that leaves a whole swathe of NPC's and monsters that have very little chance at deceiving a high-Wisdom, proficient PC.

I don't mind if the character burns a resource like a spell slot to get that effect, but having it be always available and almost always succesful, is just too powerful IMO. On the flip side, I also don't want to deny the player who likes playing insightful characters the chance to shine.

So what solutions to this have other people come up with? How do you deal with it?

[Sabeta]

Insight: Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether
you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such
as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's next
move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language,
speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.

Gauge the clues you give your PCs by their roll. Just barely meeting a DC10 check for example might tell them that their Target's Body Language has shifted, but not why. It would be a big enough clue that the person isn't being completely forthcoming, but without giving them the complete answer, and of course if they press the subject the wrong way people might become hostile and information lost. I know I've bumped into a great number of NPCs who would sooner die than tell me the truth.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Gauge the clues you give your PCs by their roll. Just barely meeting a DC10 check for example might tell them that their Target's Body Language has shifted, but not why. It would be a big enough clue that the person isn't being completely forthcoming, but without giving them the complete answer, and of course if they press the subject the wrong way people might become hostile and information lost. I know I've bumped into a great number of NPCs who would sooner die than tell me the truth.

I don't think you're quite understanding the issue. As soon as I, as a DM, say anything about the target's body language, the result is in. There's very limited vocabulary you can use to describe the intentions of a person through their body language. Not to mention the fact that merely rolling means that the player already has a fair idea of whether they passed or failed before I even describe anything.

And it's not about whether the NPC answers or not, or gives a complete answer, or even lies, it's about Insight being, effectively, a lie-detection cantrip with the Deception check essentially being the same as a saving throw against the PC's Insight roll as the DC.

[Kane0]

MultiDCs.
Say for example your PCs are having a chat with the local snitch, and he doesn't want them to know he'd gone and told everybody what he knows. DC 15 insight.
But that DC is the 'You think he's hiding something' DC. You also have say DC 12 as 'He seems sketchy but you don't think he's having you on' and DC 18 as 'This guy definitely has an agenda and you can make an educated guess what it's about'.
If the binary nature is what is getting you caught up then get rid of it. Have different rolls give different pieces of information. Bad rolls might get a PC nothing (or worse, have them buy in to a ruse!), average rolls getting them hints and good rolls giving them almost outright confirmation of their suspicions.

And don't forget to insert red herrings! If the players catch onto your patterns and tells then of course their characters will begin to walk all over your NPCs socially. The social RP part of the game is very susceptible to unintentional metagaming.

[CaptainSarathai]

Yep - you don't need to tell them what the lie is, only that this guy isn't being totally honest.
I usually use a successful Insight check to cue a different Knowledge check (or Intimidate, if you're Batman) or signal that the PCs should try to talk around the problem and narrow it down.

So the guy selling them a treasure map says Beggar: "Yeah, there's uh... buried loot, TONS of it really... in the old castle up North at Congress Point. This map will take you there! I'll sell it to you, for a few gold pieces!

PC: how do we know this old beggar isn't lying through his tooth? (Rolls Insight = success)

DM: you notice his eyes are shifty, and he keeps fidgeting with the map. He's definitely up to no good here.

PC: I knew it! What's he trying to pull, can Krall the Maleficent catch him out?

DM: Roll History (success)
DM: Krall knows that there was never a castle built on Congress Point. Legend tells that the king did send some surveyors there once to consider it, but some thing in the swamp killed most of them. Only one returned, driven completely mad.

If they had failed the History roll I asked for, then they'd be totally in the dark, and only know that the guy is lying. Is he lying about treasure there? Is he lying about what's on the map altogether - is it an incomplete map? They might still decide to go check it out, but they know to be cautious now, since they know that on some level, they're being decieved.

[Laserlight]

Ever since the Insight skill was introduced, originally as Sense Motive, I've taken issue with the binary nature of the skill check in regards to determining whether a person is lying or telling the truth.

It needn't be binary. You've got a spectrum with "I'm completely sure he's telling the truth" on one end, and "Every word she said is a lie, and I include 'and', 'but' and 'the'" at the other -- but you've also go "You know, I'm just not sure" in the middle. Thing like "You get the feeling he was choosing his words carefully." "It seemed like she was lying--certainly she was nervous. But then, I'd be nervous too, if Big Eddie was after me." "You'd hate to play poker against him--you couldn't read him at all."

[Sabeta]

Why not read on how people dealt with Sense Motive then? Knowing you're being lied to doesn't seem anywhere near as significant as "Detect Surface Thoughts" or "Sense enchantment" or "Discern secret message/alignment". I don't know, I guess none of my tables have ever really had a problem with Insight, so I haven't thought about it much.

[dropbear8mybaby]

But that DC is the 'You think he's hiding something' DC. You also have say DC 12 as 'He seems sketchy but you don't think he's having you on' and DC 18 as 'This guy definitely has an agenda and you can make an educated guess what it's about'.
If the binary nature is what is getting you caught up then get rid of it. Have different rolls give different pieces of information. Bad rolls might get a PC nothing (or worse, have them buy in to a ruse!), average rolls getting them hints and good rolls giving them almost outright confirmation of their suspicions.

But here the DC's are much the same result. If I say that "You think he's hiding something," that's exactly the same as if I said he lied and the players won't trust him and will treat him exactly the same as if I'd said he'd lied about something in particular. Nothing actually changes and it still ends up being a binary result.

[Sabeta]

Almost all skills are Binary results. You see the Traps/Ambush or you don't. You climb the wall or you don't. You convince the Priest his church is actually funding the Resurrection of a demon prince or you don't. You spot the deer's tracks or you don't.

The most you can really do is "more passing" or "more failing", but at some point a threshold between pass and fail is crossed.
So what's the problem?

[Kane0]

But here the DC's are much the same result. If I say that "You think he's hiding something," that's exactly the same as if I said he lied and the players won't trust him and will treat him exactly the same as if I'd said he'd lied about something in particular. Nothing actually changes and it still ends up being a binary result.

A good adventurer won't trust anybody ever. The important part is the magnitude of the distrust.

[CaptainSarathai]

Ninja'd, so double post incoming


And it's not about whether the NPC answers or not, or gives a complete answer, or even lies, it's about Insight being, effectively, a lie-detection cantrip with the Deception check essentially being the same as a saving throw against the PC's Insight roll as the DC.

I think you're rolling too much. Set a DC, you're the DM. You have options here. There's a sliding scale of difficulties on DCs, or just look at their unmodified roll (just the D20) and base it on that.
If you really need to get a lie past the players, set a really high DC.
If the characters wouldn't know that the guy is lying for any reason than body language, set a high DC.

If the players are taking Insight against everything that moves, then set "trap" DCs. Say, 18+ and they know he's lying. 12+ and they misread his body language. Have them totally ruin a relationship with an NPC by calling him a liar when he wasn't one. That'll teach them to only waste time with the roll when they have reason to think they're being snowed.

Or, tell your players that you account for their "passive Insight" and take a 10+mods. If anyone rolls a lower Deception, the PCs automatically know he's lying. They don't need to roll to catch every lie. This way, you can have a DC set a little above their Passive, and the players have to decide to roll or just trust that their character knows what's up.

But really, I think that a lot of DMs just roll way to much. Like, do you roll against the Rogue's Acrobatics when he runs across a narrow beam? No. You set a DC. So why would you roll Deception against the PCs? You are NOT playing a character against them, you are the DM, you have more tools at your disposal because you are playing a story against them. NPCs in D&D are the AI in a videogame, they're programmed - there is no player on the other side of that AI controlling their dialogue responses. There is no random chance.

In D&D, I've seen the "roll against" style DMing ruin campaigns, because someone used a Forgery to create a pamphlet proving that the BBEG was guilty of Treason, and the NPC it was given to flubbed the roll and took it as real, and sent the entire army to arrest the king.

[Sabeta]

I feel like Sarathai and I both read from AngryGM, or both have similar opinions on things.

[Kane0]

Or, tell your players that you account for their "passive Insight" and take a 10+mods. If anyone rolls a lower Deception, the PCs automatically know he's lying. They don't need to roll to catch every lie. This way, you can have a DC set a little above their Passive, and the players have to decide to roll or just trust that their character knows what's up.


Forgive me, I literally forgot that my group consistently uses passive investigation and insight alongside passive perception. We've done it long enough that I don't even register that other DMs might not have those numbers available sometimes.


I feel like Sarathai and I both read from AngryGM, or both have similar opinions on things.
I think you know something you're not letting on. *Rolls insight*

[JAL_1138]

Never call for an Insight check (unless the player says something like "does he seem truthful" or whatever). Let the players decide if they want to question tbe NPC's trustworthiness.

Never tell a player "you think he's telling the truth." Instead say something like "He seems to be earnest" or "you don't pick up any obvious signs of deception." Same as always saying "You don't see any traps" instead of "There are no traps."

Use Insight to tell them what they perceive, not what they think or what the objective truth of a statement is. They'll often get suspicious of people who are being totally honest, the same way a Rogue gets paranoid about a trap-free room. You can eventually make them so paranoid they start prodding the NPCs with 10ft poles.

However, "he does seem to be lying" can work, since they pick up signs of deceit. But that doesn't tell them what the lie or omission is. Still, use something that blunt sparingly. "It seems like he might have some ulterior motive" or "it seems like there's something he's not telling you" can be better, since it doesn't even state for certain that what's been said is a lie or what they're holding back and if it's serious. "He seems really nervous" can be true of an NPC who's nervous about a lie or nervous for another reason, such as worried they can't persuade the PCs to help or to believe them about the truth. It also gives NPCs a way to talk their way out of suspicion by lying about what they've been caught lying about, giving a plausible but false explanation the PCs aren't as likely to keep questioning. Don't do that too much though, so it doesn't lose its impact.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Ever since the Insight skill was introduced, originally as Sense Motive, I've taken issue with the binary nature of the skill check in regards to determining whether a person is lying or telling the truth. It forces me as a DM to essentially give players a very easy lie-detection spell that only requires proficiency in a skill. Few creatures are trained in Deception and they tend to be the ones with an already decent Charisma score, so that leaves a whole swathe of NPC's and monsters that have very little chance at deceiving a high-Wisdom, proficient PC.
Have you tried giving your NPCs skill proficiencies? Just because the people writing the Monster Manual did doesn't mean you need to do the same. Heck, you can even give the occasional guy Expertise.

[mgshamster]

In addition to some of the suggestions above, try including the "yes, and" and "no, but" technique.

When a PC fails a check, say, "you failed, but..." and talk about something the gleam or some part of it that was successful. When they pass, say, "you success, and..." including something that creates a complication or make it not a perfect pass.

This is particularly useful when someone just barely fails or barely passes. Makes it much less binary.

(I also like the tiered DC suggestion above)

[Shaofoo]

Have you tried giving your NPCs skill proficiencies? Just because the people writing the Monster Manual did doesn't mean you need to do the same. Heck, you can even give the occasional guy Expertise.

How would that work? the NPC doesn't need to roll Deception unless you want to. It is much easier to set a DC and then let the players roll Insight instead of having to parse a different dice. It is much easier to say that the Insight DC is 25 than it is to roll a dice.

But seriously, you aren't compelled to tell them that someone is truthful or not. A person could be telling the truth and be fidgeting for entirely different reasons and that might set off the lie detector or a person can just have the most legendary poker face and tell you a bold face lie like he was saying the color of the sky is blue (which is why polygraphs are horrible at detecting lies). Or if you want to you can add some prejudice, if the character has a tendency against a race then tell them that he is always lying because his preconception is that said race can never be trusted.

Just because he looks like he is hiding something doesn't mean that he is hiding something.

Also you can also impose a negative social standing if the player is using Insight when it isn't socially acceptable, have the NPCs notice that he is also being scrutinized and call them out on it (of course that might be their own Deception roll if they truly want to silently scan someone or I would just let them take the Insight check at a disadvantage).

[JohanOfKitten]

I think a good way to avoid binary results of insight is to avoid binary NPCs.
if the NPCs have motives, emotions, objectives, links, drawbocks, you will build the dialogue corresponding to that and when a player asks for Insight, you can describe something about what/why/how the NPCs respond, not just only the binary fact of lie/truth.

When given thoses informations, the players can try to understand them, or maybe dig a little in it to be sure the NPCs is honest. Don't forget that the NPCs can respond depending on how the players deal with them. If the group surround the servant to ask her about her dead husband, she might look frightened and evasive. Evasive dosen't mean she lies about killing her husband. the group scared her. Maybe, with that in mind, a character take her alone and try to calm her done, explaining she's here to help her, create some complicity and ask her again where she was at the time of the crime. If she's still evasive, she's definitively hidding something. If not, she was just in mental distress the first time.

With build like that, you can have some nice intrigues and the players with good Insight can do well in it, but without big black and white panel telling them the way. And after few days of investigation and finding the hag in disguise, still not be sure if the mayor was a complice to arrest or an innocent to whom they can reveal the truth so they can stop the hag.

[Segev]

Just to add to what others have already said, there is a difference between "He's lying" and "He's hiding something." There's a difference between "The beggar knows the map is junk and is trying to cheat you," and "The beggar knows the map is legit, but that there's a hideous monster rather than a pile of loot waiting for you there."

If you want non-binary results, give Insight results that indicate where the PCs can press for more information, not what that information is. And certainly don't stonewall it with near-useless results. "He's lying," again, doesn't say about what, nor even give a hint as to where to probe to find out what. So unless it's something as straight-forward as a binary statement, where falsehood means a very specific thing is true (e.g. "I did not kill him!" being false means that, yes, the speaker DID kill 'him'), you should avoid "he's lying" and go with something more evocative.

The King's vizier hiring you in the King's name to go rescue the people that were kidnapped by the orcs may well be hiding something. Further probing may reveal that the mission is legitimate, but that the vizier is still too anxious over this. Is he really behind this? No, that doesn't seem to be the case (after more Q&A and Insight). No, it's that he has a personal stake in it. Eventually, the fact that these people include a peasant with whom the vizier is in love but who is entirely inappropriate for him to be considering even having as a mistress might be discovered. Failures in the wrong places, on the other hand, might convince the party that the vizier is trying to get them killed or betray the king somehow.

[Specter]

Be as vague as possible.

- Something's different.
- What?
- Something's different.

Works for me.

Also avoid the trap of making Insight checks and use passive rolls instead. If a player rolls a 1, he will know he can't trust himself.

And use Insight for other motives, such as knowing the peasant's worried about his family or that the guy isn't too sure. If it's only for lies. Pcs will pick up on that fast and trust no one.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I'd echo everyone saying that instead of "he's lying about X" you should do "he's acting a bit stiffly" or "you get the feeling she's not telling the whole truth", and leave it up to the players to act on what that might mean.

But more than that I disagree with my entire heart and spleen with the idea that it's more OK for a spellcaster to expend a spell slot to be as good as or better at something than someone who expended a skill slot.


Never call for an Insight check (unless the player says something like "does he seem truthful" or whatever). Let the players decide if they want to question tbe NPC's trustworthiness.

Disagree with this too. If a character is good at reading people he shouldn't stop being good at it just because the player isn't constantly reminding the DM of this fact. People should get to play characters that are better than themselves at things (and as usual, this isn't challenged for combat or magic, but frequently for skill use).

[Specter]

Disagree with this too. If a character is good at reading people he shouldn't stop being good at it just because the player isn't constantly reminding the DM of this fact. People should get to play characters that are better than themselves at things (and as usual, this isn't challenged for combat or magic, but frequently for skill use).

Yep, another reason to use passive values.

[Sir cryosin]

MultiDCs.
Say for example your PCs are having a chat with the local snitch, and he doesn't want them to know he'd gone and told everybody what he knows. DC 15 insight.
But that DC is the 'You think he's hiding something' DC. You also have say DC 12 as 'He seems sketchy but you don't think he's having you on' and DC 18 as 'This guy definitely has an agenda and you can make an educated guess what it's about'.
If the binary nature is what is getting you caught up then get rid of it. Have different rolls give different pieces of information. Bad rolls might get a PC nothing (or worse, have them buy in to a ruse!), average rolls getting them hints and good rolls giving them almost outright confirmation of their suspicions.

And don't forget to insert red herrings! If the players catch onto your patterns and tells then of course their characters will begin to walk all over your NPCs socially. The social RP part of the game is very susceptible to unintentional metagaming.

If you want to have your players second guessing any info you give them just add in " you think" for insight roll add it on to the end or for things like stealth you say you think your stealthed. There is this cool list or words or phrases that you tell you players to keep them getting what your true intentions are for the true intentions and your words. I wish I know we're I can find that list but I can't remember.

[Shaofoo]

Also avoid the trap of making Insight checks and use passive rolls instead. If a player rolls a 1, he will know he can't trust himself.


Even better, he rolls a very low number and you tell him the information as if he gotten a success.

[Slipperychicken]

So what solutions to this have other people come up with? How do you deal with it?
I would just remove deception and insight entirely, and make players and NPCs suss out truth from fiction the normal way. Some games do that and it works just fine.


If I felt like I had to make it a rules thing:
-First, rolls to determine a character's suspicion are made by me, behind the screen. Players do not get to see the result.
-Second, the skill gives a vague feeling, nothing more. Results are along the lines of "he might not be telling you everything", or "you have a bad feeling", depending on the margin of success.
-Third, I would randomize results on a failure. I'd roll 2d6 and give a result without regard to the NPC's sincerity. On a 2 "he might be full of it", on 3-5 "something seems off", 6-8 "seems normal", 9-11 "doesn't sound like he's lying", 12 "he sounds sincere". Something along those lines. That takes out the binary aspect and makes it a little less certain. Also it means that even characters who fail can conceivably get it right by a random guess. Or they can fail miserably and be delude themselves into thinking that close allies are hiding things from them.

[JAL_1138]

I'd echo everyone saying that instead of "he's lying about X" you should do "he's acting a bit stiffly" or "you get the feeling she's not telling the whole truth", and leave it up to the players to act on what that might mean.

But more than that I disagree with my entire heart and spleen with the idea that it's more OK for a spellcaster to expend a spell slot to be as good as or better at something than someone who expended a skill slot.



Disagree with this too. If a character is good at reading people he shouldn't stop being good at it just because the player isn't constantly reminding the DM of this fact. People should get to play characters that are better than themselves at things (and as usual, this isn't challenged for combat or magic, but frequently for skill use).

They're still better at reading NPCs than their player. The player might not notice someone's tell in poker; their character could if they questioned whether the other person was bluffing. Suppose in game terms the player's Insight is +0, and their character's is +8. If they "roll"--if the player questions whether an NPC might be deceiving them--the player might "roll" a 14, too low to beat the DC and wouldn't notice any signs of a lie. Their character, however, would get a 22 on that check and spot that the NPC's bluffing. But the character might not be paying attention or thinking about it. Just because someone can spot a lie well when they're focused on doing so doesn't mean they're always going to be thinking about doing it.

If you call for the roll, you pretty much say "THIS PERSON IS LYING" in metagame unless you ask for it after practically every interaction with NPCs. If you only do it rarely, when a player hears you call for it and detects nothing, they immediately believe the NPC simply rolled higher on Deception than their Insight roll picked up. It's only useful if you want to make them distrust that particular NPC about that particular thing and have a hard time not metagaming. Granted, sometimes that's exactly what you want, but still.


Yep, another reason to use passive values.

You can certainly use passive values; nothing wrong with that approach. They simply spot someone being fidgety or nervous or whatever if their passive score is higher than the other value--but IMO it should still be left to the player to make the check for anything above that.

[Coffee_Dragon]

But the character might not be paying attention or thinking about it. Just because someone can spot a lie well when they're focused on doing so doesn't mean they're always going to be thinking about doing it.

The character not thinking about "doing it" could be represented by a bad roll, or the DM might say "you're over by the iguana-on-a-stick stand so you're not really following the conversation" or something, but it shouldn't be a consequence of the player failing to go "Is this guy lying? What about this guy? Is he lying now? What about now?" Any more than Perception checks should rely on players going, "Yes, I'll check this intersection for traps too. And this bit of corridor. And this door. And this room. Yes, the furniture too. And inside the furniture. And the corners. And the floor."


If you call for the roll, you pretty much say "THIS PERSON IS LYING" in metagame unless you ask for it after practically every interaction with NPCs.

Players may not always get rolls, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve checks (unless there are meta reasons for a lie to be undetectable), which can be handled with the passive skill rules and/or hidden or prepared rolls. I don't personally see Insight as some kind of procedure that a character needs to actively apply as much as a general capability, so precisely because most interaction is not expected to involve deceit (might depend on the campaign), I don't think anyone should miss out on getting to use their skill because they don't continually insist on rolls.

[JAL_1138]

Any more than Perception checks should rely on players going, "Yes, I'll check this intersection for traps too. And this bit of corridor. And this door. And this room. Yes, the furniture too. And inside the furniture. And the corners. And the floor."

*pokes thread with a 10ft pole, replies when nothing attacks or explodes* I'm a bit of a grognard who thinks checking everything for traps is one of the fun parts of dungeon-crawling, when I'm a player. I loved going through the Tomb of Horrors. You forgot to check the ceiling. Enjoy the Green Slime.

[BW022]

Ever since the Insight skill was introduced, originally as Sense Motive, I've taken issue with the binary nature of the skill check in regards to determining whether a person is lying or telling the truth. It forces me as a DM to essentially give players a very easy lie-detection spell that only requires proficiency in a skill. Few creatures are trained in Deception and they tend to be the ones with an already decent Charisma score, so that leaves a whole swathe of NPC's and monsters that have very little chance at deceiving a high-Wisdom, proficient PC.

...

So what solutions to this have other people come up with? How do you deal with it?

You are thinking of the skill too narrowly. It is not detect lies or zone of truth. It lets you know something about the persons emotional state, answers, demeanor, habits, etc. It does not say what is causing this.

If they make a successful roll... give them words like anxious, nervous, confused, afraid, busy, flustered, giddy, aggravated, lively, grateful, etc., etc. (For a good list try: https://www.sonoma.edu/users/s/swijtink/teaching/philosophy_101/paper1/listemotions.htm) You do not need to give them any reason why the person is in that state. The player will need to figure that for themselves -- through additional questions, intuition, likely reasons, etc. They could be lying or it might be some other reason.

Example, PCs are dealing with a questionable merchant to get some information. They make insight checks (say 10, 15, and 19). Two PCs conclude that the merchant is "extremely nervous and is looking around a lot" and (the 19) "he is looking at the half-orc PC a lot". Now, the PCs can assume all sorts of things -- he might be lying, it might be an ambush, etc. However, in this case, the merchant made a bad deal with someone else and is worried that the PCs might be here to kill him.

My general guide...

1. Players have to actively make rolls. I only use passive checks if the state is trivial or it speeds up the encounter.

2. Success gives a general state. Nothing more.

3. An extremely high roll... might give the state and a clue (for example, the 19 knows he is also looking at the most heavily armed person).

4. A poor roll might give false state or conclusion. (for example, a 4 above might give, "you don't think he likes half-orcs")

5. If players start meta-gaming rolls (i.e. the players disregard the conclusions of those with low rolls and go with those with high rolls, asking for more rolls, etc.), then have the rolls done in secret or have them pre-roll ten times prior to the session and then use them in random order.

6. Give advantage or disadvantage in cases where there are barriers or familiarity -- races the player isn't familiar with, non-primary languages, player with a merchant background, etc.

7. Don't allow repeated rolls unless the subject's state changes. Never permit it on individual statements -- unless the PCs are specifically doing things to trip up the person. (For example, they don't get any additional rolls or it becomes clear they aren't working for the noble he ripped off).

8. Smart liars will have a cover story. (The merchant will say he was robbed last week if asked why he is nervous.) Players do not get any additional rolls -- he is still nervous -- ynless they ask a ton of questions about the robbery.

9. Put in enough 'trivial' states that players aren't meta-gaming the results. (Lots of people are nervous around the half-orc.) Players get used to folks having something going on and don't immediately assume everyone is lying. Do think of a lot of motivations for your NPCs. NPCs may also have multiple things going on. Bad moods, money problems, sickness, family issues, alcohol, busy, etc. which have little to do with what the PCs are discussing in the moment.

10. Sometimes use passive checks or allow new rolls simply to move the encounter along. (Let them realize that the merchant is more worried about someone else.)

11. If someone does make a good roll... reward them. Give them a good clue or tip. (Say, the merchant is desperate and might be willing to trade information for helping him with his current problem.)

12. Don't correct false assumptions. (If players think that merchant looking around mean he is setting up an ambush for them... so be it.)


I tend to find that this solves the problems without nerfing the skill. It is still useful (it gives players some idea to ask more questions or think about motivations), but it doesn't detect lies or event hint at it. Use this enough and there is always levels of uncertainty. Players get used to this approach and they often only ask for rolls when they really need it -- otherwise they learn that following up on every emotional 'state' is self-defeating.

[mephnick]

Pre-rolled number list and using that against the PCs' passive insight checked only when the detecting the lie or not is worthwhile, or at the start of every interaction.

Then you can look at the next number on the list (14) and see that the cleric has a passive insight of 16. "Borethor, you can tell he's being tense and shifting his eyes when talking about the gem".

Or you check the pre-roll (18) and see the passive insight is 16 and say nothing.

No rolling give-aways, good insight characters remain good at all times.

[JAL_1138]

A good adventurer won't trust anybody ever. The important part is the magnitude of the distrust.

The Paranoid Adventurers' Guild approves this message. But wonders if you have an ulterior motive. *rolls Insight*

[Demonslayer666]

I have to ask, why is it a problem that they are detecting lies?

If it's important that they don't know, then don't allow them to even roll.

If it's too easy all the time for them, increase the DC.

[CursedRhubarb]

If you get tired of them always rolling to try and detect lies, introduce a fey creature that never lies but is also almost never honest. They need to rescue someone it has so they can ask it if it has seen the person and wind up with something like this:

PC: We're looking for this man, he's gone missing. Have you seen him recently?
Fey: Why yes, I saw him just yesterday.
PC: Do you know where he could be?
Fey: I know not where he is now, I saw him at the market and he looked to be in a hurry. Terrible if he's gone missing, best for him if he's found soon. Sorry I can not be of more help.

Even if the PC rolls a nat 20, all they know is the Fey hasn't lied. Even though the Fey grabbed him at the market and he has him locked in his basement, he doesn't know where exactly in the basement he is at that moment so by saying he doesn't know where he is, he remains vague enough with the statement that it is not a lie. Planning to eat the guy, saying it is best for the guy if he is found soon is also truth.

Having found no lies at all the PCs leave him be and the guy is eaten that night and his bones returned to the market to be found the next day with teeth marking matching they fey, who has mysteriously disappeared and the PCs realize they had they guy but failed to realize it because they only looked for lies.

Mwahahaha!

[Douche]

I'm not sure what you find to be such a problem. In real life, some people can be extremely easy to read. You can tell when they're nervous, or hiding something, or outright lie to your face. If anything, it should be up to the DM to act everything out and let the PCs deduce for themselves whether they're being lied to or not.

So when you say "There's no way I'm setting up an ambush for you! You guys are my friends! Just go down that alleyway and everything will be fine!" you should also say what the guy is doing with his body, following it up with "your acquaintance looks away with a guilty expression and scratches his head nervously" (or you could pantomime it while you're talking, but I doubt a lot of people are that good of actors)

But that would be a perfect world, a lot of DMs aren't going to go into that much detail for every single line of dialogue- and besides, you'd be giving the answer away. Thus, they have the insight check. And if they have a high enough roll, then you can tell them what it is about their body language, or the way they were talking, that makes them seem suspicious.

If you consider it a "binary choice" and all you have is Lie/Not Lie, then that sounds like a lack of creativity on your part. As for the players automatically assuming the worst - make it not the worst and after a few times, they'll realize that they shouldn't jump to torturing the guy just because he said he only found 5 gold, when he actually found 6.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Even if the PC rolls a nat 20, all they know is the Fey hasn't lied.

Of course this assumes that the skill only works to detect literal untruths, not deceit by omission, equivocation etc.

[JAL_1138]

*snip*

If you're being that literal-minded about detecting lies--more Zone of Truth than Insight--then "Sorry I can not be of more help" would be a lie. He's not sorry, and he could be of more help.

[Zorku]

A good adventurer won't trust anybody ever. The important part is the magnitude of the distrust.
I'd like to add emphasis to this, as well as whoever said the thing about having more complex characters. Everybody lies about almost everything almost all of the time, but that's mostly in little ways that they just don't think are relevant and don't want to think about very much.

"Sense motive" is worded in a way that eliminates this kind of thing, but mere insight has lots more room to pick up on details that aren't the simple "I win" button that the PCs are looking for.


Moreover, I don't think that the monster manual was actually meant to give you the proficiency list for every creature- it hardly ever mentions these things, and most of that is more to describe animal senses and instincts that trained abilities. Frost Giants are one of the only humanoids with a listed proficiency, and that just amounts to their culture making every individual excel at wrass'lin. I highly advise giving some of these abilities to your NPCs any time they're actually an interesting enough individual to warrant it, especially when you know your group is actually likely to have these kinds of interactions.

[CursedRhubarb]

If you're being that literal-minded about detecting lies--more Zone of Truth than Insight--then "Sorry I can not be of more help" would be a lie. He's not sorry, and he could be of more help.

If it didn't have the guy it would help, and it never specified who it would be of help to. Telling the truth without being honest if a fun brain exercise because it works backwards to how people normally think. Being more vague with questions years better results while a yes or no question is the easiest to skirt around.

[dropbear8mybaby]

It lets you know something about the persons emotional state, answers, demeanor, habits, etc. It does not say what is causing this.

OK, I think a lot of people here are not quite getting what my point is. I'll try to clarify it a bit better but I'm not sure I can.

ANY answer, gives the player pass/fail knowledge.

It doesn't really matter that you're not saying, "He lied about this exact part in the sentence but not the rest," the fact that you've told the player, "He's being a bit sketchy," is automatically a successful roll, whether using passive or behind the screen, that gives the player the knowledge that this character isn't being truthful. What's more, within the context of a limited conversation, it's almost always possible to then put 2 and 2 together to know what the person was lying about.

NPC: "If you go down to the woods today, you'll find no surprises."

Player: "I roll insight to see if he's lying."

*rolls a 17 on the die with a +8 modifier*

DM: "He's being a bit sketchy."

Right there, the player automatically now knows that he'll find surprises in the woods. It's not as good as a Zone of Truth spell, but it's at-will, and highly likely to succeed. It doesn't matter that I didn't give specifics because the nature of the rolling and the context give away all the information needed to make a sound judgement.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Not really seeing the problem.

[Specter]

OK, I think a lot of people here are not quite getting what my point is. I'll try to clarify it a bit better but I'm not sure I can.

ANY answer, gives the player pass/fail knowledge.

It doesn't really matter that you're not saying, "He lied about this exact part in the sentence but not the rest," the fact that you've told the player, "He's being a bit sketchy," is automatically a successful roll, whether using passive or behind the screen, that gives the player the knowledge that this character isn't being truthful. What's more, within the context of a limited conversation, it's almost always possible to then put 2 and 2 together to know what the person was lying about.

NPC: "If you go down to the woods today, you'll find no surprises."

Player: "I roll insight to see if he's lying."

*rolls a 17 on the die with a +8 modifier*

DM: "He's being a bit sketchy."

Right there, the player automatically now knows that he'll find surprises in the woods. It's not as good as a Zone of Truth spell, but it's at-will, and highly likely to succeed. It doesn't matter that I didn't give specifics because the nature of the rolling and the context give away all the information needed to make a sound judgement.

If you roll in secret or use passives, they'll never be sure if they got the lie or not, as long as you make a habit of not always giving it straight to them. Make a habit of being a lying vagabond yourself.

[Pex]

If a player built his character in such a way to be very good at Insight, then when he succeeds at Insight that's the whole point of him building his character in that way. However, since you feel it takes away something from the game for a PC to be just that good, then make it an opposed check against the NPC's Deception/Persuasion depending on whether the NPC is lying or not instead of a flat DC. If you think a particular monster should be hard to read, give it proficiency in the roll regardless of whatever is written or not written in the Monster Manual. If the PC still wins it's a feature he detects the NPC/monster is lying and not every single NPC or monster will be proficienct and are supposed to be easy to read by those who are good at Insight. If a bard or rogue selected Insight for his Expertise, he would be properly miffed it never works just because you don't want it to work. Such a character is supposed to be only fooled on a 50/50 frequency basis by those who are themselves experts at deception.

[Sabeta]

No, I think that a lot of people get what you want.

There's a few possible logic process.
>We don't know the motives of this NPC. We have been to this forest before, and it was safe; however we suspect that may have changed. Let's ask.
>NPC: Nothing is unusual today.

>High Roll: Find out he's lying, prepare for war.
>Low Roll: Find out nothing, prepare for war.
>High Roll: Find out he's truthing, prepare for war.
>Low Roll: Find out he's lying, prepare for war.

Honestly, in the example you've given you could just remove the NPC and then your Scout will find out something is weird because his Survival checks show a bunch of tracks leading into the woods, and the Wizard's Arcana check is going bonkers on the magic-o-meter, and the Nature check told the Park Ranger that all of the birds have stopped chirping and that something is going down. I guess you missed the post earlier, but ALL skills are binary results.

Just like with your Perception and Insight homebrew, I think that your question doesn't actually have to do with the nature of Binary skills, but that you just want to control the information that your players recieve because your plot relies too heavily on the players being lied to or stepping on a bear trap. If that's the case, JUST DO THAT! You don't even have to set a DC for the NPC you mentioned, just tell them he seems trustworthy no matter what the result is and watch them be surprised when your Russian-Bear-Ninjas explode from the underbrush (because you also didn't let the Rogue notice the giant balls of fur and black clothing and communist symbolism laying around everywhere) and murder them. Then when they complain about the NPC they met earlier you can say things like "He's an agent for the enemy and has dedicated his whole life to being good at lying. The DC was 35"

If it's a known and trusted NPC then you can just add

"He was disguising himself as someone you trust so that you wouldn't doubt him. He's also a Changeling Warlock/Bard combo with Expertise in stop doubting me this is my story just live with it."

[dropbear8mybaby]

If you roll in secret or use passives, they'll never be sure if they got the lie or not, as long as you make a habit of not always giving it straight to them. Make a habit of being a lying vagabond yourself.
Still not getting it. Think of it as Schrödinger's Cat. Before you make the roll, you don't know if it's a lie or not. But as soon as you make the roll, whether you rolled it, I rolled it, it's passive or not, the box is opened and you know the result.


Just like with your Perception and Insight homebrew, I think that your question doesn't actually have to do with the nature of Binary skills, but that you just want to control the information that your players recieve because your plot relies too heavily on the players being lied to or stepping on a bear trap.

Way to sneak in an ad hom. Nice.

[JAL_1138]

"He seems a little nervous and fidgety" could be because he's lying...or because he's worried you won't believe the actually-true thing he's saying. It doesn't absolutely mean he's lying.

[IShouldntBehere]

Donald, The PC approaches Chuck. The NPC.

Chuck is member of the ruling class of middling importance/power, involved in a political situation that Donald cares about. Specifically the potential assassination of Duke Von Dukington.

While chuck has no solid evidence he can present (at least the trial will take), he is 100% certain at least some of those involved in the conspiracy. He doesn't want to see Duke Von Dukington killed, but he himself is at great risk if he makes any moves or reveals what he knows (at least if anyone finds out).

Donald asks Chuck: Chuck are you aware of who is attempting to kill Duke Von Dukington.

Chuck thinks for a moment and hestitantly says: "I'm sorry. I can't really think of anything useful to tell you. It's horrible that whole plotting thing, tis a pity what ambition drives men to do...:"

Donald suspecting he is not getting the whole truth and nothing but the truth from Chuck. Declares he is rolling insight.

The DM Announces: Sure. Roll it.

Now lets consider 5 different outcomes of the roll:

Donald: I got a 10.
GM: You're confident that he isn't lying, but he is hiding something.

Donald: I got a 4
GM: This man is lying through his teeth, you can practically smell the blood on his hands. His face is portrait of arrogant criminality.

Donald: I got a 8
The DM: You can't get a good read on him. He seems nervous, maybe? No maybe not? You can't tell.

Donald: I got a 12
GM: He's hiding something. You get the real sense he wants to tell you, something is holding him back. Whatever he knows it's important and he knows it is.

Donald: I got a 22.
GM: He's got something good but he's afraid to tell you. Given his position he has a lot to lose, if you can find some way to make him feel secure he'll certainly open up. Whatever he's hiding it must be big the man is clearly straining to contain himself. Chances are a safe house or some body guards with no connection to the royal family are a good starting place.

[Specter]

Still not getting it. Think of it as Schrödinger's Cat. Before you make the roll, you don't know if it's a lie or not. But as soon as you make the roll, whether you rolled it, I rolled it, it's passive or not, the box is opened and you know the result.

Think of it like this: if he gets a 1, he'll think he's absolutely honest. If a 20, absolutely liar. But if you roll in secret, they won't know what number they got.
BUT if they request an Insight against an honest guy and roll low, they'll think he's dishonest, and may threaten him or kill him or whatever. And if a second pc rolls high, he'll know he's honest and there will be internal conflict about what to do with this guy.

See what I'm getting at? They should never know, and if they want a check they should roleplay according to that check. You could even make open rolls and force the player to interpret naively, even if he as a player knows it's a lie. Have fun.

[Sabeta]

Way to sneak in an ad hom. Nice.

>Ignore the entirety of my post to talk about the one part you didn't like.

Care to remind everyone which Fallacy that is? But I get it, you don't actually care about this game. You care about hurting your players; like I suspected in the last thread.
Have fun with that I guess, I'm sure someone will eventually find the exactly correct words that you want to hear.

[Christian]

NPC: "If you go down to the woods today, you'll find no surprises."

Player: "I roll insight to see if he's lying."

*rolls a 17 on the die with a +8 modifier*

DM: "He's being a bit sketchy."

Right there, the player automatically now knows that he'll find surprises in the woods.

Party gears up, casts buffing spells, and heads into the woods, ready for anything. After hours of uneventful searching, they return to town, tired and frustrated.

Player: "You said he was being a bit sketchy. But we went out there, and we really didn't find any surprises."

DM: "Well, he had no idea if you would or not. He just likes sounding knowledgeable."

Player does not automatically know what you (or he) thinks he does. He knows what you told him; the validity of his inferences may well be suspect, especially when the information is this broad or vague.

[dropbear8mybaby]

But I get it, you don't actually care about this game. You care about hurting your players; like I suspected in the last thread.

Wow man. I literally made this thread because I don't want to punish players for using Insight. And the rest of your post was irrelevant because you continue to ignore the problem and post no actual insights (ironically) but rather side-stepping "solutions". So I ignored them.

But hey, keep thinking you're the most important person in the world whose "advice" is the bestest ever and I'll continue to put you on ignore.

[Sabeta]

Pretty much everyone has either provided reasonable, sound advice, or asked what the problem even was in the first place.
You've ignored it all and said "Nope, that's not what I want. Keep guessing, teehee."

[mgshamster]

Quite easily the best advice in this thread to completely 100% remove the OPs issue is to roll insight checks behind the DM Screen. Or if you don't want to roll so your players don't know you're making a check, then use a silent dice app on your phone/computer or have a sheet with a bunch of pre rolled numbers to use in order.

If your players don't know there's a check, then they won't meta the knowledge of a die result. Pure and simple.

If you're afraid your players will meta with a description of "he seems shifty," then stop making those descriptions special or unique. Describe those for every damn NPC and it becomes so common that when you point out something like that, it won't stand out. This adds a special benefit of making your game world seem more real, as everyone has their quirks. Just like real people.

[RSP]

Personally, I feel Insight, and all skills, should be rolled at disadvantage if you aren't skilled. In addition to providing descriptions to PCs based on how they rolled, this helps mitigate the medium to large parties passing most skill checks in games due to bounded accuracy and most times someone will roll in the upper 20% on the d20 and pass. I think this helps those who have proficiency shine more rather than rely on luck and might make proficiency choices matter a bit more.

Specific to this thread, if you play the fail check=false info (and likewise roll in secret), I think this may help the OP's original issue; you won't have to worry about lucky rolls ruining your intrigue so much anymore while still letting characters built to detect lies shine a lot. The fact that they don't know the roll, and the rest of the party is most likely failing due to non-proficient and disadvantage (and therefore being told their character believes the npc), means even when the Insight PC is successful, the party only knows one PC picked up on something and that PC has to convince the rest of the group, who aren't thinking the npc is lying, that they are.

Likewise, it kind of forces the group to follow the high insight PC even when he's wrong and misses a roll for the same reasons.

Anyway, hopefully this helps.

[NichG]

It seems like the main problem here is knowing how to have NPCs where there are multiple layers of information to be revealed, so that a single positive or negative indicator isn't enough to totally pigeonhole the NPC into 'good guy' or 'enemy trying to kill us'.

What I mean is, there's this discussion about how Insight is acting as a lie detector spell, and that even a small hint like 'body language has shifted' means that the PCs will just conclude that the NPC is lying. But if there's never any harm to the PCs for incorrectly concluding that an NPC is lying, but there is harm to the PCs for concluding that the NPC is truthful, then actually Insight hasn't provided much information - in that kind of world, the best strategy is just to always assume that everyone is lying. To really get the most out of things, jumping to the erroneous conclusion of 'this NPC is lying to us' should be as problematic on average as jumping to the erroneous conclusion of 'this NPC is telling the truth'. But for that to be the case, you have to have nuanced situations. So it might be useful to go through a couple situations and the kinds of cues you could get at different levels of perceptiveness.


- NPC is telling the PCs about something, but has alterior motive tangential to the PCs (if the PCs take care of the monster infestation, I'll be able to reopen the mines, and I can finally start a family!)
- NPC is telling the PCs about something, but is just generally afraid of that thing/current situation (I saw a Balor, how am I not dead, how are we going to survive, help!)
- NPC is telling the PCs about something, despite the fact that they're being threatened not to (I know they might kill me, but this is more important than me, I have to let the PCs know)
- NPC is telling the PCs about something, and is afraid of the PCs because of relative power or reputation (Okay I'll tell you please don't kill me, I hope they believe me, they've been known to kill liars!)
- NPC is telling the PCs about something true, but is exaggerating or bragging or being caught up in hero worship (Yeah the goblins are in the forest, and, ooh, I bet if you go to the swamp you'll find a coven of witches, and maybe a dragon in the hills!)
- NPC is telling the PCs about something, but is distracted by an unspoken concern (yes, yes, its in the woods probably... now how am I going to deal with that taxman?)
- NPC is telling the PCs the truth, but doesn't like them or doesn't like the fact that they're forced to tell the truth
- NPC is telling the PCs the truth, doesn't like them, and thinks that the truth will get the PCs in more trouble than saying nothing
- NPC is telling the PCs about something, and is partially lying to deflect them because they're being threatened by a third party
- NPC is telling the PCs about something, and is partially lying to deflect them because of personal shame or potential for loss (the vampire is in the kitchen, but don't enter the bedroom, it put a fake coffin there and a bunch of traps - when actually the bedroom contains the NPC's vampiric thrall child)
- NPC is telling the PCs about something, and is omitting information due to belief about it's relevance/irrelevance
- NPC is telling the PCs about something, and is partially or fully lying in the belief that it will protect them or help them more than the truth would
- NPC is telling the PCs about something, and is lying to trap or harm them
- NPC is telling the PCs about something, but is wrong because of their ardent beliefs (no, of course Paladin Gregory is innocent, he couldn't've done it)
- NPC is telling the PCs about something, but is wrong because of failed reasoning (no, of course Paladin Gregory is innocent, he left that morning to clean out a goblin lair)
- NPC is telling the PCs about something, but is wrong because of misinformation (no, of course Wizard Cecil is innocent, I saw him in the tavern at the time of the crime - when its an illusion)
- NPC is telling the PCs about something, but has been put under pressure to be more confident than they actually are (maybe it was, I mean, yes, it was definitely Paladin Gregory)


Then, for graded successes, you can give more and more concrete explanations for exactly what's going on with the NPC:

- Failed roll: you glean nothing
- Weak success: Emotion. The NPC seems happy/sad/distracted/excited/nervous/scared/guarded/suspicious of you/...
- Moderate success: Emotion and cause. The NPC seems nervous because of the subject. The NPC seems to be worried for your safety. The NPC seems to be thinking about someone or something else while talking to you. The NPC seems to be trying to put the pieces together.
- Strong success: Intent. The NPC appears to not care if you believe them or not. The NPC is watching you carefully to figure out what you're going to decide, and seems to want you to do a particular thing. The NPC appears to pause at moments which suggests that at some level they're uncertain about what they're saying, but is caught up in the moment and is being more confident than would normally be warranted about their conclusions.
- Perfect success: Full information. The NPC is acting like they're worried about someone watching them - probably they're not supposed to be having this conversation with you, and its going to come back on them. They also don't seem happy with the situation. Because they're putting themselves at risk to tell you this, and don't have a positive outlook on the results of taking this action, its likely that they're telling you the truth, and also that they have nothing directly to gain from doing so.