D&D 5E Do you use passive insight?

MiraMels

Explorer
But it doesn't make sense for a DM to compare a PC's passive score to a fixed DC that he himself chooses, as a way of deciding anything. You could have done that before the game session even started. If it makes the narrative more interesting for the innkeeper to lie to the adventurer, go with it and just say so. "The innkeeper tells you that there are no bandits on the north road, but he is obviously lying". There's no need to justify your narrative choice with pseudo-mathematical numbers; there's no need to say to yourself "12 is greater than 10 so I'm going to tell the player that the innkeeper is lying".

Without rolling against the players, I it frequently to improvise an answer to a question that has no DC.

An example would be, a player asks me if their character knows anything about the ruined keep they just spotted on the horizon, and rather than just have them roll a check, i'll look at their passive history and give them some details based on that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mercule

Adventurer
I use Passive LotsOfStuff. Why? Rolling dice when it isn't interesting to the narrative is stupid.

If there's a secret door that, not discovering will kill the adventure, then I want them to find it. But... I want to make sure it's the guy who invested heavily in Perception who finds it. Ditto with reading people (Intuition), showing off with basic parkour (Athletics/Acrobatics), non-critical knowledge checks, etc. I don't make characters roll to see if they picked up their stupidly heavy backpack correctly, either, which is just passive Strength.

Now, if there's something interesting I can do with the result, then we'll roll. Normally, that means failing the roll would be interesting. Sometimes, "interesting" just means they have to take the long way around instead of the shortcut. Sometimes, it actually just means that they don't get that +1 sword that was hidden beneath the statue. But none of that means they're stopped or get an auto-win.

Of course, having a real chance of "losing" is important to the game. I've killed characters and would not prevent a TPK. I just won't let the win/lose proposition come down to a single die roll with no alternative.

The other reason to use passive checks is, as [MENTION=6777052]BoldItalic[/MENTION] says, to set the DC for a contest. This is especially true for contests where only one side is aware the contest is even happening (stealth, lying, etc.).

I generally don't use passive checks for repetitive actions (searching for secret doors). Most of the time, there's a pattern to the action. I just roll one or two dice and use those results for the one or two meaningful checks. If there's nothing to find, I still roll. It just doesn't matter what I got. The 3E "take 20" rule was more about repetitive checks than the concept of a passive check. Passive checks are best reserved for passive or uninteresting things.
 

BoldItalic

First Post
Without rolling against the players, I it frequently to improvise an answer to a question that has no DC.

An example would be, a player asks me if their character knows anything about the ruined keep they just spotted on the horizon, and rather than just have them roll a check, i'll look at their passive history and give them some details based on that.
Okay, I see that as a procedure, but do you not consider the narrative effect of the possible answers you have in mind? Give the amount of detail that moves the story forward in interesting ways? Give the players sufficient information to choose their next action?

Presumably, we have put the ruined keep there for a purpose. The players might decide to investigate or ignore it, but it would move the story forward if they investigate. We want it to sound interesting, possibly mysterious and possibly relevant to their current goals, so their curiosity will be piqued. We want to give them the right amount of information to achieve that, regardless of their PCs' ability scores because it's the players we want to entice, not their characters.
 

MiraMels

Explorer
Okay, I see that as a procedure, but do you not consider the narrative effect of the possible answers you have in mind? Give the amount of detail that moves the story forward in interesting ways? Give the players sufficient information to choose their next action?

Presumably, we have put the ruined keep there for a purpose. The players might decide to investigate or ignore it, but it would move the story forward if they investigate. We want it to sound interesting, possibly mysterious and possibly relevant to their current goals, so their curiosity will be piqued. We want to give them the right amount of information to achieve that, regardless of their PCs' ability scores because it's the players we want to entice, not their characters.

I'm...not entirely sure what you are asking me here, but i'm happy to answer your question as soon as i know what it is. Could you be a little more specific? or just rephrase it? i might just be parsing it poorly.
 

CM

Adventurer
Not specifically, since switching to 5e, but I do like to keep the full list of party members' trained skills in mind when describing something. If someone has a standout skill in a relevant area, I'll drop them additional small details with an opportunity to make a check for further discovery.

When necessary, I also use Insight as a "eureka" skill when the players are stumped due to failure to pick up on my clues or my failure to convey the clues properly, not just as a "something is wrong" indicator.
 

BoldItalic

First Post
I'm...not entirely sure what you are asking me here, but i'm happy to answer your question as soon as i know what it is. Could you be a little more specific? or just rephrase it? i might just be parsing it poorly.
I'll try. Let's establish some common ground. We, as DMs, control the amount of information we give the players. Where we perhaps differ is in how we decide that. You have your way and I have my way but that's okay there's no right and wrong. What I'm asking is to what extent your way is similar to my way; what parts of your way I could adopt and incorporate into my scheme, to make my own games better?

I give the players the information I want them to have, to tempt them into exploring the places I put there for them to explore. Of course, they know I'm doing that and they play along because otherwise the game stalls. I make it up as I go along, judging what will sound enticing and mysterious against what will sound relevant right now. So my question is, how can I incorporate passive investigation scores into a mechanical procedure to help me do that?
 

Shiroiken

Legend
I use Passive Checks regularly, including Perception, Insight, and Investigation. Traps, Secret Doors, and Hiding Creatures roll against Passive Perception. NPCs and monsters use Deception against Passive Insight. A few Traps roll against Passive Investigation, but it doesn't come up very often. I often use Passive History, Arcana, Religion, and Nature as a baseline for how much information to give out in an adventure (I do this when writing, rather than during play), with rolls being used for clues or unexpected information requests.
And of course, passive perception helps reduce the temptation of your players to feel like they have to actively check every single nook and cranny of every room. They know that even if then don't actively check, they are at least somewhat covered by passive perception. It also helps with sneaking situations where the players are sneaking around lackadaisical guards who just have their passive perception scores to rely on, and vice versa.
Passive Insight reduces the temptation of your players to feel like they have to actively interrogate every single NPC. It comes off exactly the same.

But passive insight presents a host of problems for me. It sets that baseline number which a character can't roll below, of course. And that presents role-playing and story-telling problems. If a character has a high passive insight, then is the DM supposed to reveal all the plot secrets, and say things like: "Edgar the merchant comes to you and tells you that his daughter has been kidnapped, but Bob, your character has a high passive insight, so you think he might be lying to you." With a passive insight, it creates a situation where some players just know all the easy secrets and answers automatically. It prevents the ability of the DM to create mysteries, or problems that the PCs have to solve or work through if one character always has a good hunch about what's going on. And when "Bob" gets told that his character has a hunch about something, all the other players know that's correct information, which makes it difficult to play their characters as though they came to other conclusions.

Sometimes a PC's hunch is just way off, and I prefer to have them roll an insight checks whenever they want, where they might roll low. This is also one of the few rolls I will make behind the screen, so that when one or multiple characters ask to know if an NPC is trustworthy or lying, different characters may get told different things depending on their secret roll, and they simply must role-play their character based on the hunch they each get, because they don't really know how the roll went. It causes the group to perhaps rely on the one character who is very wise (has a high insight modifier) and is often able to suss out a situation correctly. But sometimes even that player gets things wrong.
You can have the PCs "botch" if the NPC rolls a 20. A critical success for one party of an opposed roll is pretty much the same as a critical failure for the other party. Also, you don't have to give out any information, regardless of Insight rolls (as others have pointed out). In your Merchant example, paranoid PCs could just attempt to actively roll against the Merchant, and a lower Insight character might get lucky.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top