An "Insightful" Question

5ekyu · Sep 20, 2018

From PHB
"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. "

From PHB
"Your Charisma (Deception) check determines whether you can convincingly hide the truth, either verbally or through your actions. This deception can encompass everything from misleading others through ambiguity to telling outright lies. Typical situations include trying to fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, earn money through gambling, pass yourself off in a disguise, dull someone's suspicions with false assurances, or maintain a straight face while telling a blatant lie."

Also from PHB
"To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success — the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

So sometimes folks take objection to various ways a Gm can answer a failed insight check vs deception to see if someone is truthing or not.

So, i will rule out at the start the idea that the Gm tells the player "you believe him" or the opposite.

What about "he seems to be telling the truth." "he seems to be lying"? or is it only the case that you can tell them if they see clearly he is lying?

But more to the point what about this exchange:
Player: i want to watch and see if my character can see that he is lying?"
GM: If the answer is "he seems truthful" will your character believe him to be telling the truth?
Player: no.
GM: the no roll necessary - every result leads to same conclusion - your character doesn't believe he is telling the truth.

I mean, does have to be a difference between failure and success for there to be a roll, right?

any thoughts on the basic breakdown of this and more importantly what are the scopes of options you use in your games?

MarkB · Sep 20, 2018

The one that always troubles me is when a suspicious player badly fumbles an insight check made against someone who's actually being truthful. Do they think the person is lying? And since the player knows they've rolled poorly, how much effort do you go to in order to keep the metagame knowledge out of that reaction?

Passive insight is also a potential stumbling block here. Does it provide a baseline below which a player cannot fail when making an active check? Or, by making an active check, does the act of effectively second-guessing themselves mean that they forego the passive check result?

5ekyu · Sep 20, 2018

MarkB said:
The one that always troubles me is when a suspicious player badly fumbles an insight check made against someone who's actually being truthful. Do they think the person is lying? And since the player knows they've rolled poorly, how much effort do you go to in order to keep the metagame knowledge out of that reaction?

Passive insight is also a potential stumbling block here. Does it provide a baseline below which a player cannot fail when making an active check? Or, by making an active check, does the act of effectively second-guessing themselves mean that they forego the passive check result?

Fwiw in my games players always roll PAR so there are no hidden rolls.

I tell them "you can interpret the roll as an indicator of confidence if you wish" because there are a thousand intangibles to every scene that can lead you to "this is a poor low confidence result or a "yeah i got this".

The catch is on a failure they know they might get good results with a setback... Maybe their insight was dead on but they let something slip without realizing it. Maybe their insight was right but they were so focused on that they did not notice the cutpurse.

So, i can give them the right answer on a failure or success... But if they roll well... They are seeing more clear cut signs that lead them to the conclusion.

Assuming they are going to believe it at all... As in the "no roll needed" contrasts.

Kobold Stew · Sep 20, 2018

I think I'm fortunate in that almost every player I play with, if they failed an insight check and knew it, would happily keep their character's knowledge different, at least for the scene.

Player: I roll insight to see if the guy is trustworthy.
(rolls a 1, +2 for insight = 3).
DM: You trust him completely. He seems completely outstanding.
Player: (thinks for a bit) Great. I hand him my coin purse and ask him to buy me another drink.

I mean, that's the fun, right?

MonkeezOnFire · Sep 20, 2018

I rule that a failed insight check represents failing to find any meaningful evidence of deception. It is then still up to the player what conclusion their character draws.

Oofta · Sep 20, 2018

For the most part I trust my players not to act on meta game knowledge, whether that's the result of an insight check or unreasonable knowledge of a monster.

So if someone rolls poorly I simply tell them that as far as they can tell, the person is telling the truth. Now and then I've tried asking what their modifier is and roll in secret, but ultimately I just decided it wasn't worth it.

EDIT: just a note that just because the NPC believes they are telling the truth, it does not mean they are. NPCs are just as fallible as everyone else.

sleypy · Sep 20, 2018

Failure is you can't get any read on the person. I would answer a failure with you see no reason to think they're lying. Sometimes I'll give them knowledge that it is a lie for free because why they are lying is more important than the lie itself.

robus · Sep 20, 2018

MonkeezOnFire said:
I rule that a failed insight check represents failing to find any meaningful evidence of deception. It is then still up to the player what conclusion their character draws.

Right - the DM can only say what the character senses, not what they do with that sense. So a failed check simply means the character is unable to spot an obvious tell that the NPC is lying. The player is under no obligation to believe the NPC. If they want to role play that they're going to assume the NPC is trustworthy that's great.

So just communicate what the character senses, not what the character decides to do with the information.

Ovinomancer · Sep 20, 2018

I decided to make insight an active use skill -- you don't observe a person and insightfully determine something, you engage that person to insightfully determine something. If you want to figure out if tge NPC is lying, you question them and the Insight roll determines success. A failure in this case has much more obvious repercussions. This requires players trying to be human lie detectors to engage the action to do so.

It works for other uses as well, and neans that there's a reason for the not high CHA characters to engage NPCs as CHA won't reveal deceptions or find out good dirt.

robus · Sep 20, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
I decided to make insight an active use skill -- you don't observe a person and insightfully determine something, you engage that person to insightfully determine something. If you want to figure out if tge NPC is lying, you question them and the Insight roll determines success. A failure in this case has much more obvious repercussions. This requires players trying to be human lie detectors to engage the action to do so.

Excuse me for being a bit thick, but what are the obvious repercussions?

An "Insightful" Question

5ekyu

Hero

MarkB

Legend

5ekyu

Hero

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock

MonkeezOnFire

Adventurer

Oofta

Legend

sleypy

Explorer

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller

Similar Threads