Skills used by players on other players.

[Satyrn]

I just don’t feel that a (rolled) Insight check is appropriate in this situation.

Man, that should've been your first reply. So much more straightforward.

 

[iserith]

The verbal gymnastics bit is not the focus of my suggestion. You can replace it with whatever you prefer. My suggestion comes down to making this edit to what you had said:

"So, when an NPC says something you think sounds fishy, you can choose to believers it, disbelieve it, or call for them to make a Deception check ask for an insight check if you’re unsure."

(Man, that should've been my first reply. So much more straightforward. )

I don't like the players asking to make an Insight check (and neither do they once they realize that making ability checks is BAD), but I do agree that when this is played out, the best way in my view is to keep the action declaration on the player's side. I have the NPC lie or whatever, then the players can declare an action to confirm their suspicions. I don't make a Deception check for the NPC. I just set the DC.

 

[Charlaquin]

Another thing you can do is stop having all of your NPCs lie to the characters so that you can avoid this:

View attachment 103635

In other words, make better social interaction challenges. In my games, Wisdom (Insight) comes up when an NPC is trying to keep its agenda or ideal, bond, or flaw hidden and the players, during the interaction, are trading off their part in the conversation to observe the NPC and try to ascertain these elements so they can then turn it to their advantage. Which translates to advantage on subsequent related Charisma checks, if there are any.

And like how I would telegraph a trap during an exploration challenge, I am telegraphing lies in a social interaction challenge. Facts that don't add up. Strange twitch. A stutter. Changing the story. If you're not hinting that the NPC is lying while describing the environment, then you're basically playing gotcha and encouraging the players to "Insight check!" every time they speak to someone, just like how they'll search for traps on every door and 10-foot pole every hallway when you don't telegraph traps. In the absence of information, that is reasonable behavior. If you don't want that behavior, increase the information flow.

To be clear, I don’t have all my NPCs lie to the characters and I do telegraph when one does. Also, the lying thing was just one example. The point I was making was that, as a result of this conversation, I’ve decided to try something different with the way I handle NPC interactions in my next campaign. It’s an experiment. Might work out, might be a disaster, in which case I’ll just go back to the way I did it before. But I want to try it out and see what happens, because that is, in my opinion, infinitely better than just theorycrafting.

As well, make failing an Insight check cost something. In addition to making this a task you have to do at the cost of not contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way, my go-to is that, on a failed attempt, the NPC knows the PC is suspicious which causes him or her to dummy up or at least make it harder to suss out the agenda and ideal, bond, or flaw. It's not just "The NPC has no apparent tells." There's no cost to that result. So of course the players will want to spam it, if they can.

Again, I’m not a fan of (non-passive) Insight checks in general. But I do think this is great advice for those who do use them, which I imagine is most DMs.

 

[iserith]

To be clear, I don’t have all my NPCs lie to the characters and I do telegraph when one does. Also, the lying thing was just one example. The point I was making was that, as a result of this conversation, I’ve decided to try something different with the way I handle NPC interactions in my next campaign. It’s an experiment. Might work out, might be a disaster, in which case I’ll just go back to the way I did it before. But I want to try it out and see what happens, because that is, in my opinion, infinitely better than just theorycrafting.

Yeah man, I'm constantly tinkering and testing. It's only way to be sure it works. Luckily I get to test this stuff on multiple groups of different players! On top of that, my regular players are all DMs, so they'll often test it in their own games and give great feedback.

Again, I’m not a fan of (non-passive) Insight checks in general. But I do think this is great advice for those who do use them, which I imagine is most DMs.

I use the passive scores if the social interaction is more than an hour and the PC is performing the task repeatedly. So if you're trying to suss out who the foreign operative is during the Duke's masquerade ball, then somewhat like an Activity While Traveling, we're going to use the passive value to determine success or failure over time.

 

[Charlaquin]

I use the passive scores if the social interaction is more than an hour and the PC is performing the task repeatedly. So if you're trying to suss out who the foreign operative is during the Duke's masquerade ball, then somewhat like an Activity While Traveling, we're going to use the passive value to determine success or failure over time.

Which I think is probably the RAI. As I mentioned earlier though, in my view, trying to get a sense of the motives of the people one is talking to and figure out whether or not what’s being said is truthful is something all people do at all times. Same goes for trying to take in the details of one’s environment and accessing pertinent information one possesses. I see these all as tasks that are being performed repeatedly over time, so I see passive checks as always being the most appropriate way to resolve them.

 

[Bawylie]

Sorry, didn’t mean to offend. I just remembered that being a reoccurring joke back in the 5e playtest days. Wouldn’t have brought it up if I had known you didn’t like the comparison.

Nah man I’m not offended. Just definitely me and not him. Like his work a lot, though.

 

[iserith]

Which I think is probably the RAI. As I mentioned earlier though, in my view, trying to get a sense of the motives of the people one is talking to and figure out whether or not what’s being said is truthful is something all people do at all times. Same goes for trying to take in the details of one’s environment and accessing pertinent information one possesses. I see these all as tasks that are being performed repeatedly over time, so I see passive checks as always being the most appropriate way to resolve them.

That's how I would have done it in D&D 4e. I think from a D&D 5e game perspective, at least how I view it, one wants to have these things as trade-offs against other tasks so that there's a meaningful choice to be made by the player. You can either try to engage in an attempt to persuade the NPC or suss out its agenda right now, for example, not both. This emphasizes teamwork in the challenge as well so that it's not just the "face" that is in the spotlight. All the PCs are involved.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's how I would have done it in D&D 4e. I think from a D&D 5e game perspective, at least how I view it, one wants to have these things as trade-offs against other tasks so that there's a meaningful choice to be made by the player. You can either try to engage in an attempt to persuade the NPC or suss out its agenda right now, for example, not both. This emphasizes teamwork in the challenge as well so that it's not just the "face" that is in the spotlight. All the PCs are involved.

Cool, man. Seems like it works well for you, and I’m sure for others as well.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Because of take-backsies.

“Is the door trapped?”
“Make a Perception check.”
(Roll, low result)
“As you examine the door, your hand brushes the handle and an electric jolt...”
“Hang on I never said I touched the door. I was just searching for traps.”

There's no reason to assume the PC is taking an action that the player has not said they're taking. When making a simple request for more information about the environment, "I'm just looking" is implied. Unforced error here on the DM's part.

 

[billd91]

Because of take-backsies.

“Is the door trapped?”
“Make a Perception check.”
(Roll, low result)
“As you examine the door, your hand brushes the handle and an electric jolt...”
“Hang on I never said I touched the door. I was just searching for traps.”

That used to be a routine occurrence in games I ran and played in. I now ask for action and intent and set a DC based on what the PC is trying to do and not on what the PC is trying to roll.

This is far easier to deal with by simply saying, based on the low result, "You didn't find any traps. What now?" And then hit them with the trap when they actually open the door. There's really no need to expect the player to pixelbitch how they're searching - a PC with a good modifier should be considerably more skilled and resourceful at that task than a nerdy gamer sitting at a gaming table and who probably doesn't have a job anything at all like exploring dangerous ruins.