Chris Perkins doesn't use Passive Insight

[delericho]

I always hate the idea of PCs getting a 'false reading' from insight. As a player, you know you've botched the check. But then you have to run the conversation from a position of obvious misinformation. The players then try to bring the conversation around to a point where they can make another insight check, to hopefully get things right this time...

There's a lot of truth in this. However, there are four ways to handle it:

1) The DM makes the check for the players. This eliminates the issue, but does feel somewhat unsatisfactory.

2) The players make the check, but the DM hides the DC. This is a little more satisfactory, but doesn't avoid the players knowing if they've rolled really badly.

3) The DM subtracts 10 from the DC and then adds the result of his own d20 roll - effectively turning all such checks into opposed checks. This may be slightly better even than #2, but is a bit more time-consuming.

4) Just trust your players to play fair. (Oh, and don't let them guide the conversation round to another Insight check - in effect, that's cheating, and shouldn't be permitted.)

In general, I find #4 is the best way to go - even in the worst case, it's only one roll, and generally not worth worrying about.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've previously said I don't like Passive Insight, it doesn't make sense to me - I'm strongly of the view that NPCs can't force PCs to believe them through a Bluff check, which IMO is the only situation where it would make sense to have NPCs rolling Bluff vs PC Passive Insight - that's how it works when PCs try to bluff NPCs.

I was listening to a bit of the Chris Perkins/Robot Chicken game on youtube and I noticed that Perkins doesn't use it either. He was playing the quest-giver NPC, the players were sceptical of her motivations.

Perkins:
"If you doubt her, you can make an Insight check to see if you think she's telling the truth."

*roll roll*

"With a 16, you're pretty sure she's not lying to you."

I think this is a good approach. It's close to how I've done it, and a good reminder to the DM to remind players that they can choose to use skills like Insight which often get overlooked.

But one issue is, how do you set the Insight DC when the NPC is not Bluffing? I'd probably default to a DC 15, 10 if there was plenty of supporting evidence the NPC was trustworthy, 20 if the PCs had good reason to distrust the NPC. And what if they fail the check? I think the answer should not be "They're lying", more something like "You don't know/You can't get a reading on her".

Thoughts?

Passive Insight exists for the very same reason that passive Perception does, to deal with the situation where the players will simply insist on rolling an Insight check for EVERYTHING and slowing the game to a crawl because they're utterly paranoid. It also lets the DM gauge what gets by the character without being noted without constantly asking for checks which get meta-gamed, again, pretty much exactly like passive Perception.

I don't see any indication that just because Chris Perkins asked for an active check when a player voiced a desire to ACTIVELY consider the possibility of being lied to that he 'never uses passive Insight'. Again, just like Perception, if someone says "I search the room" then they're entitled to an active check. If they say "Is this guy lying" then they're entitled to an active check.

As for the whole question of player agency and control of the character. Well, the players have control of their characters. If the player says "I don't believe NPC X" then that's the end of the discussion. That doesn't mean he has a reason to believe that the NPC is lying, he may or may not. You can say "NPC X seems to be truthful" but the PC might still not believe it. Look at the real world, people refuse to believe you when you tell them the truth all the time! The Insight checks are still useful to the player as they can confirm suspicions or allow greater information.

So, I think passive Insight is a good time saver. It comes up less than passive Perception but it is basically the same thing.

 

[OnlineDM]

I don't exactly play passive skills "by the book" but I do use them. I tend to go more by training than the specific passive number.

For instance, if I have an NPC trying to bluff the PCs and I know that the NPC isn't a great liar, I'll ask who's trained in insight, and I'll tell the trained player, "You get the impression she might not be totally on the level." I obviously will try to avoid this if I know no one is trained in insight, of course.

I use this with lots of different skills. If the players see something dangerous-looking underground, I'll ask who's trained in dungeoneering and give them some useful information about the hazard. I've used similar things for thievery (recognizing that this trap must have a certain type of disabling mechanism), arcana (understanding that this magical construct might have an "off" switch) and nature (recognizing that a particular vine looks dangerous). I could also see doing this for bluff/diplomacy/intimidate against certain NPCs (you're trained? you succeed) or streetwise (you're looking for a place to buy illicit goods? you ask around and get directions with no trouble).

I mainly use these for skills tied to wisdom, intelligence and charisma (though I can see situations where I'd use passive endurance). Thievery is dex-based, but I've used the "knowledge of thiefliness" aspect of the skill passively. I struggle to think of cases where I've used passive athletics or acrobatics; it would only be to understand information about sports or something like that, I guess.

But in all of these cases, I just reward the player for choosing to train their character in the skill rather than making an opposed roll or setting a DC to compare their passive value against.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't exactly play passive skills "by the book" but I do use them. I tend to go more by training than the specific passive number.

For instance, if I have an NPC trying to bluff the PCs and I know that the NPC isn't a great liar, I'll ask who's trained in insight, and I'll tell the trained player, "You get the impression she might not be totally on the level." I obviously will try to avoid this if I know no one is trained in insight, of course.

I use this with lots of different skills. If the players see something dangerous-looking underground, I'll ask who's trained in dungeoneering and give them some useful information about the hazard. I've used similar things for thievery (recognizing that this trap must have a certain type of disabling mechanism), arcana (understanding that this magical construct might have an "off" switch) and nature (recognizing that a particular vine looks dangerous). I could also see doing this for bluff/diplomacy/intimidate against certain NPCs (you're trained? you succeed) or streetwise (you're looking for a place to buy illicit goods? you ask around and get directions with no trouble).

I mainly use these for skills tied to wisdom, intelligence and charisma (though I can see situations where I'd use passive endurance). Thievery is dex-based, but I've used the "knowledge of thiefliness" aspect of the skill passively. I struggle to think of cases where I've used passive athletics or acrobatics; it would only be to understand information about sports or something like that, I guess.

But in all of these cases, I just reward the player for choosing to train their character in the skill rather than making an opposed roll or setting a DC to compare their passive value against.

I'm not even really sure this diverges at all from RAW. Remember, there is a 'take 10' provision, which if you start thinking about it is pretty much the same sort of idea as 'passive' skills in the sense that characters can be assumed to accomplish a 'baseline' level of performance in a task when they are given routine circumstances (IE not in the middle of a fight or whatever). Thus a guy wandering down a passage deserves a 'passive' (take 10) Dungeoneering check to notice things that are fairly obvious and where you'd assume the character is paying attention (IE exploring a hazardous dungeon). Its possible to quibble about when this kind of take 10 is appropriate, maybe if a monster jumps you then you don't really have time to think about what it is, you can make a check, but you might fail even if you SHOULD know the answer, you're just flustered or whatever.

Anyway, I think it makes reasonable sense to allow for a basic level of competency in most things and treat situations like 'passive checks' where it makes sense. Really all the rules tell us is when the PCs CAN use their skills, but they certainly can use them in other situations as well.

I'd always note too that DMs are always free to set any DCs they want based on a situation, so just because the rules may state a DC for some situation the DM might substitute something else when he wants. I'd call that the DMs most commonly exercised prerogative.

 

[OnlineDM]

Sure. I was just pointing out that I don't care what the actual passive value of the skill is, just whether the PC is trained or not. If your idiot barbarian with 8 intelligence is somehow trained in history, there are still cases where I'll give him a pass just because the player chose to invest his scarce skill training in that particular skill. Not in every case, mind you, but I like to reward players for the choices they've made.

 

[MrMyth]

I've previously said I don't like Passive Insight, it doesn't make sense to me - I'm strongly of the view that NPCs can't force PCs to believe them through a Bluff check, which IMO is the only situation where it would make sense to have NPCs rolling Bluff vs PC Passive Insight - that's how it works when PCs try to bluff NPCs.

I was listening to a bit of the Chris Perkins/Robot Chicken game on youtube and I noticed that Perkins doesn't use it either. He was playing the quest-giver NPC, the players were sceptical of her motivations.

Perkins:
"If you doubt her, you can make an Insight check to see if you think she's telling the truth."

*roll roll*

"With a 16, you're pretty sure she's not lying to you."

I think this is a good approach. It's close to how I've done it, and a good reminder to the DM to remind players that they can choose to use skills like Insight which often get overlooked.

I'm not sure that approach actually implies the lack of Passive Insight.

My approach has always been that I might roll against Passive Insight if a PC is being lied to and the player is not suspicious. Basically, a high enough insight means the player gets a 'heads-up' when something is off about what they are being told.

If the PC, however, is suspicious in their own right, they can certainly attempt an Insight check to try and get a sense for whether they are dealing with deecption or not.

And, regardless of their result, the player can always come to their own conclusions. Even if everything they are told sounds smooth and reasonable, if they really are convinced they are being told a lie, they can certain react accordingly.

How precisely do you want to handle things in the absence of Passive Insight? I can only see two real approaches, and neither one is especially good:

1) Whenever an NPC lies to the PCs, you don't roll Bluff. Unless the PCs actively state they are suspicious and ask to roll Insight, the NPC does not need to roll anything in order to lie, and even the most insightful PCs don't have any way to note inconsistencies.

I suppose this can work in a campaign heavily driven by player skill, and which PC skills are intentionally marginalized. A really good DM will be able to pepper falsehoods with clues and inconsistencies that the PCs can pick up on, at which point they might ask to roll Insight to figure out what is going on.

Or, as I suspect is more likely to be the case, once PCs realize that Passive Insight is out the picture, they turn to the need to analyze everything, and will request to roll Insight checks against everything they are told, just in case. Which tends to slow things down to a crawl, while offering no real benefit.

2) Whenever an NPC lies to PCs, you roll Bluff, and ask them to roll Insight. And when they all fail their rolls, you kindly ask them to just ignore the fact that they rolled that, and hope that even though the PCs are clueless, the players now totally know that something is going on.

A DM might be able to remove that by throwing lots of 'false' insight checks at the group, just to keep them on their feet, and so they never know which ones are real. But clever PCs can still often figure out from context, and either way - again, you end up slowing things down for no real benefit.

Conclusion: I like Passive Insight. I just think you need to use it properly, and from your post, the problem may have been that you aren't doing so. As noted above, the excerpt from Chris Perkin's game does not in any way go against Passive Insight - the second that players become skeptical and indicate they have doubts, the 'passive' part has already gone out the window.

It is exactly the same as Perception. If PCs are traveling down a road, and someone is hiding in the bushes watching them, I'll roll against their Passive Perception to see if they notice. Or if they are walking past a clearing with valuable herbs in it, I'll check their Passive Perception to see if they notice.

But if the scout says, "Hey, I'm looking around for anyone planning to ambush us", or "Hey, I take a closer look at that nearby clearing", then we are into active checks, and the scout actively rolls Perception.

Same exact thing. If an NPC lies to PCs, I roll Bluff against Passive Insight. If they see a group of people who are acting strangely, I'll check their Passive Insight to see if they notice. Whereas if they actively express suspicion about her or are actively curious about the unusual behavior, they go ahead and roll their checks directly.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure. I was just pointing out that I don't care what the actual passive value of the skill is, just whether the PC is trained or not. If your idiot barbarian with 8 intelligence is somehow trained in history, there are still cases where I'll give him a pass just because the player chose to invest his scarce skill training in that particular skill. Not in every case, mind you, but I like to reward players for the choices they've made.

Sure, his skill bonus is 5 higher and if that lets him pass the passive check then he did it. I don't understand the urge to give people a pass because they have training. Either they're good enough to figure it out or they aren't and the numbers should tell you that. If you NEED to set things up such that a character will get certain information, then arrange it so the DC is in the range where it will happen. I don't see a need for special rules.

 

[OnlineDM]

Sure, his skill bonus is 5 higher and if that lets him pass the passive check then he did it. I don't understand the urge to give people a pass because they have training. Either they're good enough to figure it out or they aren't and the numbers should tell you that. If you NEED to set things up such that a character will get certain information, then arrange it so the DC is in the range where it will happen. I don't see a need for special rules.

It's the same general approach. I just don't bother with the numbers. Trained = passive success at minor tasks. Not trained = no passive success at minor tasks. This also means that the 8 intelligence fighter who's trained in history is going to automatically know some things that the 20 intelligence wizard who's NOT trained in history won't know without a roll, even though the wizard's history skill is higher (+4 versus +5). I'm explicitly rewarding the fighter's skill choice by throwing him a bone. The wizard could roll for it and probably succeed, too (I'm thinking of things that would be something like an easy DC skill check if I actually bothered to put a number on it).

I'm skipping the step of dealing with numbers, both to make it easier on me (no need to figure out the right DC such that the trained characters will succeed on a passive check but the untrained characters won't) and to reward players for the skills they chose for their characters to train. That's all.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

4) Just trust your players to play fair. (Oh, and don't let them guide the conversation round to another Insight check - in effect, that's cheating, and shouldn't be permitted.)

Even better, generally trust them, but reward them for enthusiastically playing within the spirit of that trust. I hand out action points, in situations like this. I've also been known to contrive to give a better item out, and let it be known why. But anything that you don't mind using as a reward can work.

Among other things, this creates an interesting dynamic. When the players hit a situation where finding out the truth is more important than the reward, then you know this isn't cheating so much as being heavily invested in the story. They are willing to sacrfice to get something. Because after all, occasionally, the characters would have some nagging suspicion and be willing to track it down.

I find it better to let players know some things that their characters don't, but reward them for staying in character--than to try to hide a bunch of stuff, and punish them for acting on it when they do find it. It eliminates at a stroke, all kinds of wasted time from misunderstandings.

 

[S'mon]

Conclusion: I like Passive Insight. I just think you need to use it properly, and from your post, the problem may have been that you aren't doing so.

I'm not triple-dipping on PC chances to spot deception, which seems to be a common here:

1. GM speaks in character as NPC - player has opportunity to tell if NPC is lying.
2. NPC always has to roll Bluff vs PC Passive Insight, if fail then PC auto-detects lies with their lie-radar EVEN IF THEY HAVE NO REASON TO BE SUSPICIOUS. I find this incredibly implausible, it ignores real-world social dynamics. It also means players never have to engage their own grey matter. It really sticks in my craw.
3. NPC makes check vs passive Insight vs PC. If player seems the slightest bit less than totally oblivious, the DM informs them they can roll an active Insight check.

Compare to PC trying to deceive NPC - either the GM lets it pass if the NPC has no reason to be suspicious, or the GM is a stickler and forces a Bluff check for everything. Even then, the PC only has to beat NPC Passive Insight to succeed - one dip, not the three the NPC had to get through.

I think there's a place for passive insight in certain circumstances, but normally as DM I give plenty of in-character signs an NPC is lying, and if the player isn't even suspicious enough to request an Insight check I don't feel obligated to have the NPC roll Bluff, just as a PC wouldn't have to roll Bluff vs a non-suspicious NPC.