D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Blue]

No, it really doesn't, as I play this way and this doesn't happen at all, nor has it been reported as happening by those that follow this method. This is an assumption that relies on assuming poor play and bad behavior.

Requiring a goal and approach is not odd at all -- you're asking what the PC is doing in the fiction so you can adjudicate the reaction appropriately. I'll use an old chestnut -- imagine a door with a handle covered in contact poison. The PC asks for a perception check on the door. Did they touch the knob? I don't know, and neither could you -- any answer is an assumption about what the PC did. In asking for an approach, we'll be clear as to whether the assumed search of the door involves touching. Pretty simple, really. Everything else is being consistent about not assuming actions (even when it should be easily done). Surely, you're not suggesting that consistent DM techniques are poor play, are you?

Please read the post I was referring to, which was talking about a player asking about a roll is a player requiring uncertainty and cost of failure. It wasn't about approaches at all.

I like the new ENWorld software, but I do miss the nesting of responses with the comments so it's clear what is being discussed in a chain of replies.

 

[Oofta]

Just to summarize my POV because I don't want to respond to multiple posts.

I'm leaving out the justification for the quote from the blog post because I disagree with the justification. Thought I made that clear.

Players declare actions all the time in D&D, I'm not sure how you would run combat if you didn't allow them to declare actions. At the same time, I sometimes prompt them for saving throws or question whether they want to use a reaction in combat. I don't see why I would run out of combat scenarios any differently.

I don't see any distinction between a mental activity and a physical one. If I'm having a discussion with someone I may be studying them closely, listening for pauses or lines that sound overly-rehearsed. In other words, making an insight check. The phrase "can I make an insight check" indicates something the player thinks their PC would be actively doing.

If someone declares they want to use a skill and it's not clear*, I'll ask for a clarification. I can't remember the last time that happened, but it probably has at least once since I've been DMing 5E. Probably.

If the DM does not allow players to ask for insight checks and only calls for insight checks when an NPC is using deception the players will pick up on this pattern quickly. If the DM does not call for an insight check after talking with the NPC, the players know the NPC is telling the truth. The players are getting a free "zone of truth".

Last, but not least asking both Bob and Susan for insight checks is dictating what their PCs are thinking and doing. Only Bob and Susan get to do that.

*Although I do have to question how "I make a thieves tool check" could be unclear. What else are they doing if I just told them the door they're trying to open is locked, using their tools to braid their hair?

 

[Maxperson]

Thanks for the response. I guess I just don't see a difference between "Can I get an insight check" and "I study his body language..." or similar. I think the end result is the same.

It's not about the end result, though. It's about the journey. "Can I get an insight check" is very gamey. "I study his body language to see if there is anything suspicious" is very in character and immersive. In my opinion it's better roleplaying. I like that the game dictates that only the DM can call for checks.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which leads us to:

D. DM intentionally misinterprets a player's communication to be overly formalistic. He understands what the player is attempting to ask, but instead reacts like the grammer school teacher getting snooty when asked "Can I go to the bathroom" instead of "May I go to the bathroom", even though the intention is clear.

Or did you REALLY not understand what the player was asking for?

I was responding specifically to 5ekyu’s response to DM Dave 1. Paraphrasing here:

DM Dave 1: Because an action must have a chance of failure and a consequence for failure in order for a check to be called for, a player asking to make a check is asking for a chance of failure and a consequence for failure.

5ekyu: Yeah, but the rules don’t say you should insert a chance of failure and consequence for failure where none would have existed just because the player asked to make a check.

Me: Obviously, but if there wasn’t a chance of failure and a consequence for failure anyway, then a check would not be the appropriate way to resolve the action, therefore the only appropriate response to the player’s request to make a check is, “no.”

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Charlaquin]

Players declare actions all the time in D&D, I'm not sure how you would run combat if you didn't allow them to declare actions. At the same time, I sometimes prompt them for saving throws or question whether they want to use a reaction in combat. I don't see why I would run out of combat scenarios any differently.

A declaration of an attack requires, at minimum, a target and a weapon. The declaration of the target communicates the goal: kill the target (or knock them out, which you would also need to specify as part of the declaration). The declaration of the weapon communicates the approach: by hitting it with the weapon. Therefore, “I Attack the orc with my longsword” is sufficient information for the DM to determine whether or not a dice roll is necessary to resolve the action - which it may or may not be! For instance, if the target is immune to damage from nonmagical weapons, I won’t bother calling for an attack roll if the attacker is using a nonmagical weapon, because there is no chance of success. If the target is incapacitated, I won’t call for an attack roll because there’s no chance of failure.

I don't see any distinction between a mental activity and a physical one. If I'm having a discussion with someone I may be studying them closely, listening for pauses or lines that sound overly-rehearsed. In other words, making an insight check. The phrase "can I make an insight check" indicates something the player thinks their PC would be actively doing.

See, “studying closely, listening for pauses or lines that sound overly-rehearsed,” that sounds like an approach to me. What’s your goal? What are you trying to learn by doing this? The answer will have an impact on whether or not you need to make a check to achieve that goal with that approach. “Insight check” is neither an approach nor a goal, it is a means of task resolution.

If someone declares they want to use a skill and it's not clear*, I'll ask for a clarification.

*Although I do have to question how "I make a thieves tool check" could be unclear. What else are they doing if I just told them the door they're trying to open is locked, using their tools to braid their hair?

“I make a thieves tool check” is sufficiently clear. It communicates a goal (open the lock you’re picking) and an approach (with thieves’ tools). If a player declared that as an action at my table, I would say, “sure, that’ll take 10 minutes and a successful DC X Dexterity check, with your Thieves’ Tools proficiency of course” if the lock could be picked and there was some kind of time pressure. If the lock was beyond the character’s skill to pick, I would say, “no need, you can’t pick it.” If it could be picked and there was no time pressure, I would say, “no need, you’ll eventually get it open.”

If the DM does not allow players to ask for insight checks and only calls for insight checks when an NPC is using deception the players will pick up on this pattern quickly. If the DM does not call for an insight check after talking with the NPC, the players know the NPC is telling the truth. The players are getting a free "zone of truth".

I mean, detecting lies is not the only thing Insight can be used for, and like any check it is only called for in response to an action (with a clear goal and approach) that the player announces. So, I don’t agree that any discernible pattern will emerge from when the DM dies and does not call for a Wisdom check. The only information you gain from the DM calling for a Wisdom check to resolve your action is that it is possible, but risky. to achieve that particular goal by that particular method.

Last, but not least asking both Bob and Susan for insight checks is dictating what their PCs are thinking and doing. Only Bob and Susan get to do that.

I wouldn’t ask them both for Insight checks unless they both announced actions with possibility of success, failure, consequences, etc. so I’m not sure what you’re driving at here.

 

[Ashrym]

It doesn't imply it -- it's how the game rules are written to work. This doesn't mean that you can't play it according to older editions -- clearly it works fine and you enjoy it, which is the only test that matters. But, yes, rolling insight can only happen if the DM asks you to, and then only in response to something a character's action declaration that has an uncertain outcome.

Sounds more like the difference between "I attack the troll" and requiring the player to describe his action as "I step in and distract the troll with my elbow allow for an opening thrust ti the belly with my dagger" just so the DM can tell the player to make an attack roll. Players and DM's both talk in game terms to facilitate actions. That doesn't change just because the encounter is social instead of combat.

Insight is not an action. The PHB tells how it works.

"Doing so involves gleaning clues from body lan-
guage, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms."

It's generally observing and understanding reactions. That has nothing to do with previous editions and there's clearly no requirement that a player need declare an action to make observations. Again, that would also apply to perception as a similar ability.

 

[Maxperson]

Sounds more like the difference between "I attack the troll" and requiring the player to describe his action as "I step in and distract the troll with my elbow allow for an opening thrust ti the belly with my dagger" just so the DM can tell the player to make an attack roll. Players and DM's both talk in game terms to facilitate actions. That doesn't change just because the encounter is social instead of combat.

An attack role is not an ability check. Ability checks are what the game says the DM is the one to call for.

Insight is not an action. The PHB tells how it works.

"It's generally observing and understanding reactions. That has nothing to do with previous editions and there's clearly no requirement that a player need declare an action to make observations. Again, that would also apply to perception as a similar ability.

It is explicitly by RAW an action. It's not necessarily a combat action as combat uses the term, but it is absolutely an act by the PC to observe and understand the creature in question.

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

 

[Charlaquin]

Sounds more like the difference between "I attack the troll" and requiring the player to describe his action as "I step in and distract the troll with my elbow allow for an opening thrust ti the belly with my dagger" just so the DM can tell the player to make an attack roll. Players and DM's both talk in game terms to facilitate actions. That doesn't change just because the encounter is social instead of combat.

It only sounds that way if you assume that DMs who run the game the way Ovinamancer and I do are asking for detailed description. But what we are asking for is only reasonable specificity. It’s not the difference between “I Attack the troll” and “I [insert description of the attack here]”, it’s the difference between “I Attack the troll” and “I Attack the troll with my greataxe.”

Insight is not an action. The PHB tells how it works.

"Doing so involves gleaning clues from body lan-
guage, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms."

I agree that Insight is not an action. Insight is a Proficiency, which can allow you to add your Proficiency Bonus to a check, if the action being resolved by the check involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.

It's generally observing and understanding reactions. That has nothing to do with previous editions and there's clearly no requirement that a player need declare an action to make observations. Again, that would also apply to perception as a similar ability.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Players declare actions all the time in D&D, I'm not sure how you would run combat if you didn't allow them to declare actions.

That is a bit of a misinterpretation of what anyone has said here. Everyone posting here, as far as I can tell, allows players to declare actions. It's kinda the key to the game, right? Some think "I roll insight" is an action that can be declared. Others, myself included, do not: I roll Insight is not something your character does; tell me what your character is doing and why and I'll let you know if you need to roll something.

If the DM does not allow players to ask for insight checks and only calls for insight checks when an NPC is using deception the players will pick up on this pattern quickly. If the DM does not call for an insight check after talking with the NPC, the players know the NPC is telling the truth. The players are getting a free "zone of truth".

Sometimes the PCs have no chance of success in certain circumstances. Just because an Insight check is not called for does not automatically mean the NPC is being truthful.

Last, but not least asking both Bob and Susan for insight checks is dictating what their PCs are thinking and doing. Only Bob and Susan get to do that.

The players describe what their PCs are doing and the goal they hope to accomplish. The DM asks for Insight check(s) if appropriate to the situation to see if the players' stated approach(es) will succeed or fail - and, if failure results, what the repercussions might be. The DM narrates the results of the results of the adventurers' actions (PHB p6). "This guy seems really nervous - his eyes are darting back and forth and he is stumbling over his words. What do Suiza and Brog do?" Or, on a failure, "He is quite annoyed at your intrusive line of questioning and bids you a good night, before turning on his heel and slamming the door in your face. What do you do now?" No need to dictate what the PCs think or what they do next, that's up to the players.

And as folks from opposing sides of the debate have said:

Insight is not an action. The PHB tells how it works.

I agree that Insight is not an action. Insight is a Proficiency, which can allow you to add your Proficiency Bonus to a check, if the action being resolved by the check involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.

In other words, if the DM calls for an Insight check, they are most certainly not telling the character what to do or think.