An "Insightful" Question

[Oofta]

I think the answer here is make that insight check behind the screen and report the results to the player. The player should not know that they failed an insight check. The character doesn't know that they failed an insight check, so why should the player have that knowledge?

With that change, all problems go away.

Whether the players knowing the result depends on your players. I'm assuming many players have at least read through the monster manual. If they encounter a troll, do they automatically reach for the fire attacks to stop it's regeneration?


If they're doing it because of meta-game knowledge then that's an issue you should have a discussion about. It's going to bother some people and not others.


But the people I play with are usually pretty good about it, and if someone has a flaw such as "I trust people too easily" this gives them a way to play it up. They know they got a 1 on their insight check, but their character absolutely believes what's being said. I throw in an NPC once in a blue moon that can beat just about any insight check (probably with the aid of magic) and call it good.


There are too many things a player could "cheat" on to worry about minor things like this. Or at least that's the way I roll. Or should I say let my players roll.

 

[Ristamar]

Question - in combat, if a player rolls a 2 and misses and another player rolls a 19 and misses do you "allow" them to draw conclusions and make decisions based on those results?

I the guy who rolled a 19+9=28 miss decides he needs advantage to fight (or to switch to spells that target with saves instead of to-hit) but the guy who rolled a 2+9 = 11 miss decides its ok for him to just swing away is that a "problem" for you like a guy rolling high on perception?

Are they "required" to roleplay those misses as if the D20 is an unknowable thing with no real analog in the game world the character can consider?

Same with saves - does "my wisdom save is a 19+9 28 FAILS" need to be treated as "no info just failed" just like a "my save was a 2+9=11" does?

i suspect (based on my experience) that in many games when a 28 wisdom save fails or a 28 to-hit fails, the players and the characters would "take notice" and tactics and choices in play might change.

have you never seen that?

I think that's an interesting line of discussion.

The one glaring difference between knowing the results of an attack roll versus a sensory based skill like Perception or Insight is direct, observable results in the case of failure.

If I swing a sword at someone as part of what would normally be an excellent attack (a high roll) yet I still miss, I know my target is either very nimble or heavily armored or protected by some other means evident via the DM's narration of the attack roll result. If I fail to perceive a possible threat via a Perception check, I have no feedback by which to judge my effort.

The lack of feedback in sensory-based checks is another reason I believe passive scores are an excellent tool. If nothing else, they provide a consistent standard as a reliable data point.


EDIT: I see this same discussion is already happening in another thread.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok, I’ve used the wrong wording there. I don’t like to tell the players how their characters think either.

“He seems confident in what he is saying.” Or “He doesn’t seem able to maintain eye contact while talking to you.” Would be more accurate. Something to convey an idea of reading a truth or lie without tying the player to a line of thought. Or something to suggest a miss read. Eg a shy NPC looks at his feet all the time, a failed insight check fails to pick up on the fact that he’s shy only that he won’t make eye contact. I’ll leave what the PC thinks up the player.

What's the cost of failure, though? In this example, rolling Insight is zero cost -- at worst I gain no new information. This instantiation of Insight means it's a no cost lie detector. I don't like that. Add to this bith of the cues you give above I'd present as part of the framing -- to me, this is stuff a PC should notice. I've come around to the idea that I want players to know something's up, because the fun part is in finding out what's going on, not being uncertain anything is.

This is why I've changed Insight into a more active use skill. You don't get tge check for watching, you get it by doing something to cause an answer. You engage in discussion to suss out motivations. Investigate works similarly to discover facts. Diplomacy and deception do what they same they do -- convince or deceive, and intimidate intimidates. This pushes back against the high CHA PC being the only one to talk to NPCs. And, also provides a clear route to interesting failures -- if your asking why someone's nervous and botch it, when they break off the talk and retreat you've lost something real. That avenue is closed.

 

[5ekyu]

I think that's an interesting line of discussion.

That being said, the one glaring difference between knowing the results of an attack roll versus a sensory based skill like Perception or Insight is direct, observable results in the case of failure.

If I swing a sword at someone as part of what would normally be an excellent attack (a high roll) yet I still miss, I know my target is either very nimble or heavily armored or protected by some other means evident via the DM's narration of the attack roll result. If I fail to perceive a possible threat via a Perception check, I have no feedback by which to judge my effort.

The lack of feedback in sensory-based checks is another reason I believe passive scores are an excellent tool. If nothing else, they provide a consistent standard as a reliable data point.

I am not talking about knowing success or fail - right?

look at the examples...

To-hit rolls:
Roll a 2+9=11 miss - player makes no in-character changes to tactics.
Roll a 19+9=28 miss - player goes "oh crap" and makes in character changes to tactics like swithcing to saves spells instead of attack spells or switching to help or grapple or advantage.

In both cases they got immediate feedback that said fail.
In both cases, they made judgements about how to proceed based on in part knowing the D20 roll that yielded the result.

Mostly likely the GM narrated those two results differently - one is a wet spot slip, the other is a dead on swing that stilll failed due to... insert Gm narration.

Now look at the example provided in the response - move silently.

If i make a stealth check why is it wrong for me to read the roll of 2 as "i sucked at that and made noise" and assume i have been heard (right or wrong) but to read the 19 roll as "i nailed that likely almost totally silent" and act like i am still hidden (right or wrong)? Reference many times in various source we see twig snaps, stairs creek, etc.

Why does a Gm choose to not narrate the 2 and the 19 differently on the stealth check to provide the player/character the same type of feedback?

Look to Insight then. You are looking for clues.
roll 2: There are a lot of mixed signals and its hard to hear his inflection over the nosie and everybody is getting jostled in the crowd so its hard to be sure what is reacting to what - but you do not see any clear sign he is lying. (or what he is planning.)

roll 19: Clear view of his face, easy to hear when he directly responds and clear tells all add up to show you with no exceptions that he seems to be being truthful. there are no signs of deception.

Now in either case, maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong. You do not know the opposing DC - but the former case leaves you very much doubting that you can trust the outcome and the latter cases leaves you thinking that unless he is really really good you can trust the result.

Why as Gm choose to narrate the result of that check and its d20 roll in a way to "hide" the d20?

Picking locks, moving silently, searching a room - all can be narrated in a way that reflects the d20 just like we reflect the "quality of the roll" for an attack (or at least we allow it to be assumed the player/character can work off that roll to make decisions.)

or do you play in such a way that the swing roll of 2 and 19 have to be treated as unknowns and tactics not change based on them.

"the roll" is not to me about success/failure but about the myriad intangibles we work into the game scene after scene - but for some - only for some d20 rolls.

In my games, all d20 rolls are treated as "known" and reflecting "confidence of the quality of the effort" whether its a swing or a search or an insight or move silently. i provide narration when needed to support that.

The i do not run into worries of who rolls what and when they can use the roll feedback and when they cannot and things run very smoothly and consistently.

 

[Celebrim]

If they're doing it because of meta-game knowledge then that's an issue you should have a discussion about. It's going to bother some people and not others.

Meta-game knowledge used to bother me a lot as both a DM trying to run a setting and a player trying to be true to my character.

After 30 years, I tell my players not to sweat it.

The reason is that once you have meta-game knowledge there is no way to 'un-have' it. Even if you try not to react to it, that in itself is still being influenced by it. So I no longer worry about meta-game knowledge and I no longer have to get into arguments about what a character should know or should not know and let players just run the character however they like, metagame knowledge and all, nor do I consider acting on metagame knowledge to be cheating.

The trick is to avoiding metagaming is simply to not get any metagame knowledge in the first place. It's the attempt to acquire metagame knowledge you should haven't (like flipping through the DMs notes when he's in the bathroom or buying a copy of the module being run) that is actually problematic, and the only part I'd consider 'cheating'.

Thus, I just use processes of play that don't put the player in the unfair position of having metagame knowledge. I don't do that because I'm worried about them 'cheating'. I do that because it is fair to the player, because the player also doesn't want to be in the position of having to pretend he doesn't have metagame knowledge he actually has.

 

[Ristamar]

roll 2: There are a lot of mixed signals and its hard to hear his inflection over the nosie and everybody is getting jostled in the crowd so its hard to be sure what is reacting to what - but you do not see any clear sign he is lying. (or what he is planning.)

roll 19: Clear view of his face, easy to hear when he directly responds and clear tells all add up to show you with no exceptions that he seems to be being truthful. there are no signs of deception.

Somewhat tangential, but I think a DM should be aware of the possible implications of their narration. In your "roll 2" example, for instance, as a player processing that result, I would be very mindful of my environment in any future attempts, perhaps even immediately isolate the subject and question him again. Those all sound like tractable factors that would affect the DC of a check, not prescriptive outcomes of a low die roll.

 

[Hriston]

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?

To me, the best way for the DM to narrate the result of a failed Wisdom (Insight) check is that you can't tell if the NPC is lying or telling the truth, and that now the NPC is aware of your suspicion and acts accordingly.

 

[Oofta]

Meta-game knowledge used to bother me a lot as both a DM trying to run a setting and a player trying to be true to my character.

After 30 years, I tell my players not to sweat it.

The reason is that once you have meta-game knowledge there is no way to 'un-have' it. Even if you try not to react to it, that in itself is still being influenced by it. So I no longer worry about meta-game knowledge and I no longer have to get into arguments about what a character should know or should not know and let players just run the character however they like, metagame knowledge and all, nor do I consider acting on metagame knowledge to be cheating.

The trick is to avoiding metagaming is simply to not get any metagame knowledge in the first place. It's the attempt to acquire metagame knowledge you should haven't (like flipping through the DMs notes when he's in the bathroom or buying a copy of the module being run) that is actually problematic, and the only part I'd consider 'cheating'.

Thus, I just use processes of play that don't put the player in the unfair position of having metagame knowledge. I don't do that because I'm worried about them 'cheating'. I do that because it is fair to the player, because the player also doesn't want to be in the position of having to pretend he doesn't have metagame knowledge he actually has.

My players are also DMs, or have been playing for long enough to have absorbed a lot of knowledge.


But to me it's simple. As you say, meta-game knowledge can't be avoided. If I think people are unreasonably using or sharing meta-game knowledge I call them on it. In my troll example, if someone says "we need to kill it with fire" I may ask them to make a nature check to see if they know that's applicable (or use a passive check at first and then active when the thing keeps coming back). I'm fairly lenient on these things and most people in my world will know they regenerate, but if it gets egregious the player and I will have "the talk".


Or I'll just change the troll and have it regenerates with fire damage. [I kid ... but now that I think of it that would be kind of funny.]

 

[Celebrim]

But to me it's simple. As you say, meta-game knowledge can't be avoided. If I think people are unreasonably using or sharing meta-game knowledge I call them on it. In my troll example, if someone says "we need to kill it with fire" I may ask them to make a nature check to see if they know that's applicable (or use a passive check at first and then active when the thing keeps coming back).

Generally speaking, for me the check to recognize the monster and recall facts you've heard about the creature about comes before someone suggest "we need to kill it with fire". Since so many of my monsters are homebrew to one degree or another (a troll is a 12HD fairy in my game, not a 6HD giant) this is pretty darn essential to play. But if a player recognizes a troll (rather than a character) and says, "Oh, these things have to be killed with fire.", I don't chide them for it. What's he supposed to do, pretend for a few rounds that he doesn't know to burn a troll before allowing himself to behave rationally? How could he ever know how many rounds it would take him to figure it out, or that absent his metagame knowledge he might have on a whim decided to open with burning hands or scorching ray anyway? It's not worth sweating, and if I was really that invested in this fight with the troll I should have taken into account the player's metagame knowledge as a possibility.

Though, I don't think I would metagame their metagame knowledge by presenting them with a fire loving troll without a clue to that fact.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think the answer here is make that insight check behind the screen and report the results to the player. The player should not know that they failed an insight check. The character doesn't know that they failed an insight check, so why should the player have that knowledge?

With that change, all problems go away.

Or, alternatively, have consequences that don't involve deceiving players.

I know this is a style of play that has long tradition, and I'm not attacking it. I'm illustrating a different path (which I unabashedly advocate for).

A failure doesn't have to mean you don't know or think the opposite, it can mean the NPC notices your suspicsion, doesn't like it and reacts accordingly. The "accordingly" takes into account the social situation and the NPCs motivations.

I'm making an effort to have PC failure be reflected in the world, not reflected in the PC. They take actions that cause things.

Now, that said, I'm still mostly at loose ends for knowledge checks. I can't seem to find a way for there to be costs for failure that don't involve providing false information.