D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Maxperson]

So you are good with "I use my insight to see if the orc is lying?"

Other than it violates the rules, it seems the same.

 

[clearstream]

There was another thread that linked to a blog by Angry DM that, among other things said that in order to play D&D 5E the "proper" way a player will never state "I make an insight check".

...

How would this specific scenario play out in your game? If you have a strict "only the DM calls for a roll" what would Bob have to do or say to indicate that they are suspicious in order for you to call for an insight check? What would Susan have to do or say to indicate her PC believes whatever the merchant says?

If I understand you correctly, then we follow much the same process: I let players call for checks. I view that as simply narrative rendered in an RPG jargon. Where I apply "only the DM calls for a roll" is that I will allow or disallow the check as seems right to me.

 

[5ekyu]

Sure, but for me there is significant difference between "Can I make an Insight check?" as in the OP and your "Can I make an Insight check to try to tell if he is lying?" At least with the latter I have an idea what the PC is trying to do that is more specific than "figure out something that might (in the player's view, which may not be the same as mine) be covered by an Insight check."

Here is where I get thrown or just maybe do it my way...

The fact that the insight check resolves studying body language blah blah to suss out intention such as lies, hostility etc foesnt to me say that the player then has to guess what they will find. I dont need to know what you are looking for to tell you what you see.

"I look down the alley" doesnt need "to see if there are orcs" to be told "you see orcs" or "you see kobolds".

Similarly with insight, study body blah blah, if the things that are observable are "he is hostile and about to attack" and not "he is lieing" that's what I give.

No need to guess what's in the box before opening it.
.
But then, as I said earlier, outside of forum dust ups, I cannot recall a single time where "what insight is looking for" was not obvious from the context and the moment in actual play - even if it's not what they get.

 

[Hriston]

That's like comparing "I insight the orc" vs "I use insight on the orc because I think he's lying to me". The comparison based on the discussion is more along the lines of requiring "have at thee orc, taste my blade" to initiate an attack. Better immersion but unnecessary.

No, it’s like comparing “I observe the orc for any telltale signs that it’s lying.” vs “I make an Insight check.”

 

[Maxperson]

The fact that the insight check resolves studying body language blah blah to suss out intention such as lies, hostility etc foesnt to me say that the player then has to guess what they will find. I dont need to know what you are looking for to tell you what you see.

I'm with @Harzel on this one. People will often fail to see what they aren't looking for, so it doesn't make sense for me to just hand out everything someone might possibly see with an insight check. Further, there might be 10 things insight could reveal, ranging from DC 5 to DC 25, and I'm not going to just stop the game to figure all of that out before the roll happens.

"I look down the alley" doesnt need "to see if there are orcs" to be told "you see orcs" or "you see kobolds".

This isn't about obvious things. Again, obvious things are obvious and you aren't going to be making rolls to see a bunch of kobolds standing in an alley anyway. This is about whether or not there might be a piece of wood on the ground in the alley.

I don't know everything in the alley and if the player wants his PC to find a piece of wood, he's going to be sorely disappointed if he just tells me that he wants to make a perception check when he looks into the alley. He will be far better served by telling me, "I look down the alley and check to see if there are any pieces of wood lying on the ground."

Similarly with insight, study body blah blah, if the things that are observable are "he is hostile and about to attack" and not "he is lieing" that's what I give.

What if he's about to attack, lying about being at the bar last night, hiding that he is the barrister's brother, hiding that he knows who killed the cook, hiding that he was present when the cook died, and feeling guilty that he cheated on his wife. Are you going to just give the player, "He's about to attack, lying, hiding three things and feeling guilty about something."?

 

[Oofta]

And you would be wrong.


Maybe in the specific example you’re referring to it does. But first of all, that was not clear to me from the request to make an Insight check alone, and second of all, there are many other situations where “can I make an Insight check?” means something else. I’m not interested in trying to guess what the player’s goals and approaches are based solely on the name of a skill they think would be applicable.

So would it be acceptable if I stated that my goal was to determine the true intentions of a creature and search out a lie or general intent and that I'm going to do it by gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms? Because that falls under 1.2 in my categories.

Which of course is just reformatting the insight skill to fit into the "goal and approach" pattern. I personally find that pattern unnecessarily artificial, I think "Can I make an insight check" is a perfectly good shortcut. YMMV*.

As others have stated, if I'm taking my time to look carefully down an alley I don't need to state that I'm looking to see if there's rats. I'll also have a chance to see the giant spider as well. If someone is making an insight check they may discern that the target is lying or they may detect that they're telling the truth but not the whole truth or that they're being honest but seem to be nervous about something else. What I need to know is that the PC is studying the NPC closely and trying to get a read on them. Frequently that's handled by passive checks in my game, but not always.

*YMMV of course is just a shortcut for your mileage may vary which is in and of itself a shortened version that has an accepted meaning based on convention and history.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm with @Harzel on this one. People will often fail to see what they aren't looking for, so it doesn't make sense for me to just hand out everything someone might possibly see with an insight check. Further, there might be 10 things insight could reveal, ranging from DC 5 to DC 25, and I'm not going to just stop the game to figure all of that out before the roll happens.



This isn't about obvious things. Again, obvious things are obvious and you aren't going to be making rolls to see a bunch of kobolds standing in an alley anyway. This is about whether or not there might be a piece of wood on the ground in the alley.

I don't know everything in the alley and if the player wants his PC to find a piece of wood, he's going to be sorely disappointed if he just tells me that he wants to make a perception check when he looks into the alley. He will be far better served by telling me, "I look down the alley and check to see if there are any pieces of wood lying on the ground."



What if he's about to attack, lying about being at the bar last night, hiding that he is the barrister's brother, hiding that he knows who killed the cook, hiding that he was present when the cook died, and feeling guilty that he cheated on his wife. Are you going to just give the player, "He's about to attack, lying, hiding three things and feeling guilty about something."?

Last bit first, it depends on the outcome of the check.

On a fsilure he may get none, or get one or two bits vaguely stated with setbacks - possibly crossing the info yo suggest he is lying but about the wrong thing for instance. If he gets a success, but not by 5 or more he may get the most prominent ones... but it really comes fine to the situation and characters - which of those are tied to flaws or ideals or bonds or the immediate events etc.

As GM I have a wide latitude in 5e rule and, yes, I do that for resolutions, not just ho the easy way.

As for there might be different DCs for specific aspects, yes, indeed, a character with a flaw that applies to one but not the other could be showing that more. You may think that's too much for you as GM yo manage, I find it really helps the game to go that extra bit.

As for finding wood in an alley, sure, it might help if the player has some little piece, but that doesnt mesn I dont describe other things that might be of interest just as visible as the wood. The small pile of gold coins sitting beside the axe handle doesnt get skipped because they said they were looking for wood. By the same token, the tension in the arms and tense grip on his hilt doesnt get ignored because my PC was looking at him for signs of deception.

But again, I repeat, the vast majority of time I have had pcs reference " using insight" (by whatever codephrase GMs may require) the intent was painfully obvious by the timing and context of the scene.

 

[Oofta]

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. “I attack the orc.” is not the same statement as “I make an Attack roll.” This should be obvious.

I don't have enough time nor energy to play word police for my players. I've never had a DM in any game across dozens of DMs in home campaigns or AL that corrected someone for using incorrect phraseology.

 

[5ekyu]

So would it be acceptable if I stated that my goal was to determine the true intentions of a creature and search out a lie or general intent and that I'm going to do it by gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms? Because that falls under 1.2 in my categories.

Which of course is just reformatting the insight skill to fit into the "goal and approach" pattern. I personally find that pattern unnecessarily artificial, I think "Can I make an insight check" is a perfectly good shortcut. YMMV*.

As others have stated, if I'm taking my time to look carefully down an alley I don't need to state that I'm looking to see if there's rats. I'll also have a chance to see the giant spider as well. If someone is making an insight check they may discern that the target is lying or they may detect that they're telling the truth but not the whole truth or that they're being honest but seem to be nervous about something else. What I need to know is that the PC is studying the NPC closely and trying to get a read on them. Frequently that's handled by passive checks in my game, but not always.

*YMMV of course is just a shortcut for your mileage may vary which is in and of itself a shortened version that has an accepted meaning based on convention and history.

Did you specify wooden rats?

 

[Blue]

Sure, but for me there is significant difference between "Can I make an Insight check?" as in the OP and your "Can I make an Insight check to try to tell if he is lying?" At least with the latter I have an idea what the PC is trying to do that is more specific than "figure out something that might (in the player's view, which may not be the same as mine) be covered by an Insight check."

I agree there is a difference. And for many actions that difference is very important. But that difference is counterproductive with Insight, which is what this thread is about.

If I am speaking with someone and watching their body language, I am not limited to "are they lying". I might realize they came into a conversation aggitated. That they might be getting angry at my question. That they are anxious that they are being questioned by heavily armed people. They flinched when I mentioned a particular name in the questioning.

My character, with a successful insight check, could tell all of these. The DM, as the interface for the world, should be informing the player of what the character notices. Yes, there's filtering such as saying "a crowd of people" instead of describing each one, but when a player is explicitly asking about everything can pick up from someone, that's not a place to engage a filter.

Take "Can I make an Insight Check" as "Can I make an Insight check to pick up anything about how this person is feeling or reacting".