I'm thinking here of the following scenario: The players are caught in a a complicated situation of extremely mistrust, but are just telling the truth and the NPC doesn't believe it. How to proceed? Do I ask them for a Persuasion check? Deception? Insight roll for the NPC and compare or just set a DC?
First, you have to decide if the NPC could possibly believe it. Maybe the story is so absurd that it's impossible to believe it even if it is true. In that case, I'd not call for any roll. The NPC just does not believe. That can be an option. However, if there is a chance the NPC could be convinced, then I'd go with a persuasion roll, and the DC depending on just how hard it would be for this party to convince this NPC. For example, if they've never met, or the party doesn't really have a reputation to speak of, the DC would be higher than if the party and NPC have known each other for a while, or if the party was famous for having saved the town in the past. Similarly, depending on how far-fetched the situation is, that will impact the DC as well.
Persuasion is the classic "trust me!" skill when you're not deceiving. That being said, an exceptionally distrusting NPC might need to see some other gesture of good faith or evidence beyond what a mere skill check can provide in order to back up a claim.
Do they not trust the PCs? In that case a CHA (Persuasion) contested by WIS (Insight) seems like the best roll. Are the PCs telling an incredibly tall tale? Maybe an INT (Persuasion) roll if the PCs are trying to explain how this outlandish idea is be true.
I'm thinking here of the following scenario: The players are caught in a a complicated situation of extremely mistrust, but are just telling the truth and the NPC doesn't believe it. How to proceed? Do I ask them for a Persuasion check? Deception? Insight roll for the NPC and compare or just set a DC?
Well, you would start with RPing it out; if the PCs can provide evidence that would certainly help their case. This is also a good option for an intermediate diplomacy result: if the NPC is not actually hostile but not convinced, he can suggest options for how to prove their assertions.
If it has to come down to die rolling, you could also use investigation to link scanty evidence into a more convincing whole.
Analyzing my players actions I realized that they became suspects on the story, but at the same time they didn't do anything wrong either. So it will come a point that they will tell the truth, but the facts are pointing to them as guilty.
About a contested roll persuasion - insight. Players rolling persuation to convince they're telling the truth. NPC contesting with insight. How that thing will even work? I think it would need to work as a "reverse" test?
For example, player rolls a 15 on persuasion, so I take a initial DC of 20 for example and subtract (20-15). That means the DC for the NPC is 5, his insight must be at least 5 and then he will know they're telling the truth?
You could use a Charisma (Persuasion) check vs a DC or in a contest vs Wisdom (Insight) check. A DC 20 Charisma (Persuasion) check means the player would need to roll 20+ to succeed, while a Charisma (Persuasion) vs Wisdom (Insight) contest the highest would win the contest by either persuading or disbelieving. A tie would likely favor Insight by remaining skeptical.
For example, player rolls a 15 on persuasion, so I take a initial DC of 20 for example and subtract (20-15). That means the DC for the NPC is 5, his insight must be at least 5 and then he will know they're telling the truth?
The core problem is that insight cannot distinguish between 'actually honest' and 'succeeded at deception'; if it could, deception would be pretty useless. Thus, it can't actually go "these people are speaking the truth", the best it can say is "either these people are telling the truth or they're good at lying".
Now, the other use of insight is to evaluate the target's personality. Here, if the NPC was wrong in his initial evaluation of the PCs personalities, you can certainly use persuasion to get him to change his mind -- high insight will make him more likely to have an accurate first impression, but also make him harder to convince, so it's a mixed bag -- but that won't say "telling the truth", it will say "they seem like fine upstanding people" (assuming they are; not guaranteed for PCs...).
I don't have players/npcs roll insight to determine lies. I have the liar roll deception and use the passive scores for insight or investigation. Its hard to lie against people who are perceptive or smart.
If players rolled insight I give them information about bonds, ideals and flaws . If they roll a knowledge check like a tool, arcana or investigation then I give them a piece of relevant information that might reveal a lie. This would be in addition to passive contest. So they could from the passive get " that doesn't seem right to you" or " he doesn't seem trustworthy" then they could roll arcana and get something like " the spell he described wouldn't work"
For an NPC I run it similarly. If the players want to lie they have to roll deception v.s their insight/ investigation. Success/failure could change the NPCs perception of risk and possibly their disposition as per the social encounter rules and so the dc for persuasion. Getting an NPC to do something always requires persuasion.
If an npc is really suspicious they might roll a knowledge check to see if they can catch the players in a lie. If they succeed then not only does the lie fail but they think either the players are stupid or deliberately dishonest so the lose disposition. They may even confront them with it.
I'm thinking here of the following scenario: The players are caught in a a complicated situation of extremely mistrust, but are just telling the truth and the NPC doesn't believe it. How to proceed? Do I ask them for a Persuasion check? Deception? Insight roll for the NPC and compare or just set a DC?
First, you have to decide if the NPC could possibly believe it. Maybe the story is so absurd that it's impossible to believe it even if it is true. In that case, I'd not call for any roll. The NPC just does not believe. That can be an option. However, if there is a chance the NPC could be convinced, then I'd go with a persuasion roll, and the DC depending on just how hard it would be for this party to convince this NPC. For example, if they've never met, or the party doesn't really have a reputation to speak of, the DC would be higher than if the party and NPC have known each other for a while, or if the party was famous for having saved the town in the past. Similarly, depending on how far-fetched the situation is, that will impact the DC as well.
Persuasion is the classic "trust me!" skill when you're not deceiving. That being said, an exceptionally distrusting NPC might need to see some other gesture of good faith or evidence beyond what a mere skill check can provide in order to back up a claim.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Why not?
Do they not trust the PCs? In that case a CHA (Persuasion) contested by WIS (Insight) seems like the best roll.
Are the PCs telling an incredibly tall tale? Maybe an INT (Persuasion) roll if the PCs are trying to explain how this outlandish idea is be true.
Well, you would start with RPing it out; if the PCs can provide evidence that would certainly help their case. This is also a good option for an intermediate diplomacy result: if the NPC is not actually hostile but not convinced, he can suggest options for how to prove their assertions.
If it has to come down to die rolling, you could also use investigation to link scanty evidence into a more convincing whole.
Analyzing my players actions I realized that they became suspects on the story, but at the same time they didn't do anything wrong either. So it will come a point that they will tell the truth, but the facts are pointing to them as guilty.
About a contested roll persuasion - insight. Players rolling persuation to convince they're telling the truth. NPC contesting with insight. How that thing will even work? I think it would need to work as a "reverse" test?
For example, player rolls a 15 on persuasion, so I take a initial DC of 20 for example and subtract (20-15). That means the DC for the NPC is 5, his insight must be at least 5 and then he will know they're telling the truth?
You could use a Charisma (Persuasion) check vs a DC or in a contest vs Wisdom (Insight) check. A DC 20 Charisma (Persuasion) check means the player would need to roll 20+ to succeed, while a Charisma (Persuasion) vs Wisdom (Insight) contest the highest would win the contest by either persuading or disbelieving. A tie would likely favor Insight by remaining skeptical.
The core problem is that insight cannot distinguish between 'actually honest' and 'succeeded at deception'; if it could, deception would be pretty useless. Thus, it can't actually go "these people are speaking the truth", the best it can say is "either these people are telling the truth or they're good at lying".
Now, the other use of insight is to evaluate the target's personality. Here, if the NPC was wrong in his initial evaluation of the PCs personalities, you can certainly use persuasion to get him to change his mind -- high insight will make him more likely to have an accurate first impression, but also make him harder to convince, so it's a mixed bag -- but that won't say "telling the truth", it will say "they seem like fine upstanding people" (assuming they are; not guaranteed for PCs...).
Why would you leave the NPC's decision up to a roll? How does that help you tell a story?
I don't have players/npcs roll insight to determine lies. I have the liar roll deception and use the passive scores for insight or investigation. Its hard to lie against people who are perceptive or smart.
If players rolled insight I give them information about bonds, ideals and flaws . If they roll a knowledge check like a tool, arcana or investigation then I give them a piece of relevant information that might reveal a lie. This would be in addition to passive contest. So they could from the passive get " that doesn't seem right to you" or " he doesn't seem trustworthy" then they could roll arcana and get something like " the spell he described wouldn't work"
For an NPC I run it similarly. If the players want to lie they have to roll deception v.s their insight/ investigation. Success/failure could change the NPCs perception of risk and possibly their disposition as per the social encounter rules and so the dc for persuasion. Getting an NPC to do something always requires persuasion.
If an npc is really suspicious they might roll a knowledge check to see if they can catch the players in a lie. If they succeed then not only does the lie fail but they think either the players are stupid or deliberately dishonest so the lose disposition. They may even confront them with it.
Would the NPC have access to the Zone of Truth spell?
That could aid the situation.