An "Insightful" Question

[smbakeresq]

Ovinomancer I get what you are saying. However what happens if a PC is just engaging in a conversation can they just pick up deceptions without actively trying? Do they have to keep trying?

What if the enemy is being controlled but is telling truthful information, can you tell they are under control of another creature?

I tried making it active too but it just ended up that the PCS trusted no one and actively probed everyone who they spoke with. It slowed it down too much.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

Ovinomancer I get what you are saying. However what happens if a PC is just engaging in a conversation can they just pick up deceptions without actively trying? Do they have to keep trying?

What if the enemy is being controlled but is telling truthful information, can you tell they are under control of another creature?

I tried making it active too but it just ended up that the PCS trusted no one and actively probed everyone who they spoke with. It slowed it down too much.

To answer both, a failure causes a setback with that NPC -- they become angry at the PCs, or become violent, or refuse to help the PCs, or increase the DC of future checks against them. The consequences are based on the situation, but should obviously flow from the NPC reaction to a botched attempt to probe for information.

This is aided by not withholding information. If the NPC is nervous, describe that without a check. The PC should be declaring actions to find out why, not to find out the NPC is nervous to begin with. "Don't pixel-bitch" is great advice. If your players are suddenly suspicious of everyone after playing for a while, the problem is that you keep trying to screw them and they've noticed.

In general, if you're requiring a roll, that roll should be because the outcome is uncertain AND there is a cost for failure. If either of these doesn't pertain, don't call for a roll (or allow one). The cost should pertain to the situation and attempted action, but it should also be palpable to the players, not something that waits until much later and is dissociated from the events.

I strongly recommend ditching subtlety and going the overact and overtell routes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It also occurs to me to explain what I mean with my "active" shorthand. I don't mean "act out the conversation". I mean "must declare an action to question the NPC. A goal and approach is required. You can act it out if you want."

 

[Ristamar]

It also occurs to me to explain what I mean with my "active" shorthand. I don't mean "act out the conversation". I mean "must declare an action to question the NPC. A goal and approach is required. You can act it out if you want."

That sounds like a form of Interrogation rather than mere Insight.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That sounds like a form of Interrogation rather than mere Insight.

Sure, if you want to call "I engage Bob the NPC with to see if I can tell if he's scared for his safety and that's why he's acting so nervously" as interrogation. I prefer this to "while I watch Bob talk to our bard, I roll insight to find out why he's nervous." YMMV. The possible fail case in the first is Bob gets more nervous and ends the conversation. The fail case in the second is... "um, you can't tell?"

 

[guachi]

The Inquisitive has the Insightful Fighting feature at 3rd level that allows him to "decipher an opponent's tactics" and use Sneak Attack even if you don't have advantage on the roll. Put simply he can figure out a target's "true intentions".

So you can basically respond to any use of Insight with "You can/can't decipher his true intentions". I know that sounds vague but's it's a good place to start when I want to decide how to approach what a PC is trying to do with insight.

 

[Ristamar]

Sure, if you want to call "I engage Bob the NPC with to see if I can tell if he's scared for his safety and that's why he's acting so nervously" as interrogation. I prefer this to "while I watch Bob talk to our bard, I roll insight to find out why he's nervous." YMMV. The possible fail case in the first is Bob gets more nervous and ends the conversation. The fail case in the second is... "um, you can't tell?"

Hard to say with such little context. Depending on the nature of the conversation, Insight may not even be applicable. He's clearly nervous, so a Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation check to get him to talk makes much more sense, IMO. But, again, hard to say for certain without more context. For example, if the thing instilling fear in Bob was in close/visible proximity, Insight could be a great approach by watching his eyes and reading his body language.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Hard to say with such little context. Depending on the nature of the conversation, Insight may not even be applicable. He's clearly nervous, so a Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation check to get him to talk makes much more sense, IMO. But, again, hard to say for certain without more context. For example, if the thing instilling fear in Bob was in close/visible proximity, Insight could be a great approach by watching his eyes and reading his body language.

Yes, sure, you're welcome to ask for a different skill roll if you want. How does that address the topic of how you use insight, though? My example is using insight because that's the topic of the thread.

I know, weird, innit.

 

[TallIan]

You can also have situation where an failed insight check comes with the answer, "You think he's lying." when in actual fact he is not. I treat a failed insight check as a wrong read, rather than no read.

How the PCs react to this information can affect other things. eg the PC attack/rob/whatever the NPC because they think he's lying, when he isn't (or no one else thinks he is) means that the local law/underground enforcement gets involved.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You can also have situation where an failed insight check comes with the answer, "You think he's lying." when in actual fact he is not. I treat a failed insight check as a wrong read, rather than no read.

How the PCs react to this information can affect other things. eg the PC attack/rob/whatever the NPC because they think he's lying, when he isn't (or no one else thinks he is) means that the local law/underground enforcement gets involved.

Nah, I make it a rule to not tell 0layers what their characters think. I've got the rest of it all, they get their characters.

Not that you can't do that, I just don't. Which is why I've gone the route I've described.